Patterico's Pontifications

3/22/2013

EXCLUSIVE: EMails Show Prop. 8 Judge Sought Ted Olson’s Advice On Whether to Attend Supreme Court Argument on Gay Marriage

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:25 am

Vaughn R. Walker, the judge who struck down Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban, sought Ted Olson’s opinion regarding whether Walker should attend next week’s Supreme Court arguments on the gay marriage cases. Olson was one of the lawyers who successfully persuaded Judge Walker to strike down Proposition 8 after a trial held in 2010.

In December 2012 emails obtained exclusively by Patterico.com, Judge Walker, who retired in February 2011, asked Olson’s law partner to “ask Ted if he thinks my attending the argument would be an unwanted distraction.”


Above: Retired federal judge Vaughn Walker, who struck down Proposition 8, seeks Ted Olson’s opinion as to whether he should attend next week’s Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage.

When Olson’s law partner responded that Olson thought Walker’s attendance would be a “potential distraction,” Walker agreed not to go, saying he understood Olson’s reaction and was not surprised by it. Walker described himself as “only moderately disappointed not to see the argument,” and added: “Ted’s argument will be spectacular, I’m sure.”


Above: Retired federal judge Vaughn Walker. Photo credit: Mike Kepka, San Francisco Chronicle

Although the emails likely breach no ethical rules — Walker retired in 2011 — they do suggest a cozy relationship between Walker and Olson that some observers may find revealing. Walker seeks Olson’s opinion regarding attending the argument, defers to Olson’s judgment, and praises Olson’s legal skills. Walker’s demeanor in the emails is that of a well-wisher who wishes to make sure Olson’s argument is not disrupted, rather than that of an impartial former jurist. It is difficult to imagine that Walker sent a similar email to the defenders of Proposition 8, seeking their opinion as to whether it would be appropriate for him to attend.

Walker and Olson’s partner have not responded to requests for comment.

THE EMAILS

The emails can be read here (.pdf). The identity of Olson’s partner has been redacted, as well as the email addresses of all participants.

The first email was sent by Olson’s law partner at Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher to Vaughn Walker on Friday, December 7, 2012. In the email, Olson’s partner forwarded a news alert from the Wall Street Journal, announcing that the Supreme Court had decided to take up the gay marriage cases. The partner’s email read, in its entirety: “Well, well…..the day of reckoning approaches. Should be very interesting.” The email’s brevity and friendly tone suggest the existence of a social acquaintanceship between Walker and Olson’s partner, a conclusion that is confirmed in later emails.


Above: Ted Olson, one of two lead attorneys for the team that successfully won a ruling from Vaughn Walker striking down Proposition 8.

Walker responded later that evening, saying that he had received a “barrage of media calls” that day, which he had mostly “managed to duck” because he was in a mediation. Walker added:

If you get a chance and it’s not out of line, you might ask Ted if he thinks my attending the argument would be an unwanted distraction. I won’t be hurt if the answer is “yes.”

The following Monday, December 10, 2012, Olson’s partner responded. The email is worth quoting at length:

Vaughn, Ted and I have discussed this over the weekend and, reluctantly, we do think it would be a potential distraction for you to attend the argument, now scheduled for March 27. There will be a heavy press turnout and you are very likely to be recognized and asked to comment. Even if you refuse, your attendance will likely be covered and your personal situation, even though now irrelevant, again reported on.

Ted, David [Boies], and AFER [the American Foundation for Equal Rights] are discouraging demonstrations or other “media events” in connection with the argument as they are concerned with negative reactions from some of the Justices. While your simply coming to observe the argument certainly isn’t intended as a “media event,” it might take on that character. My friend, you are just too well known to slip quietly into the Supreme Court chamber unnoticed. I’d like to attend myself but I’m told that the demand for tickets will be so great we aren’t even sure we can accommodate all of the trial team and Olson/Boies immediate families.

Here is a screenshot of the response from Olson’s law partner:


Above: Ted Olson’s partner explains Olson’s media strategy to retired Judge Vaughn Walker

(The “personal situation” Olson’s partner refers to is Walker’s years-long romantic relationship with a man, which Walker spoke of openly after the decision was rendered. Walker faced heavy criticism from supporters of Prop. 8 during the case. They speculated that Walker wanted to marry his partner, and accordingly might benefit from a ruling striking down Prop. 8. Another judge later ruled that Walker had been under no obligation to reveal whether he wanted to marry his partner before deciding the case. Walker’s conduct of the case also came under public scrutiny when he announced that the trial would be publicly broadcast through a live feed accessible at federal courthouses in four states. Prop. 8 supporters had argued that their witnesses would be subject to retaliation — a realistic fear given that Prop. 8 opponents have engaged in boycotts, outing of home addresses, and other retaliation against supporters of the measure. The Supreme Court issued an order striking down Walker’s plan to broadcast the proceedings.)

Having been told about Olson’s media strategy, and that his attendance might undermine that strategy, Walker agreed not to attend, and said that he believed “Ted’s” argument would be “spectacular”:

Thanks for touching base with Ted about this. I am not surprised, understand fully and only modestly disappointed not to see the argument. Ted’s argument will be spectacular, I’m sure.

Walker concluded the email with an invitation for Walker, Olson’s partner, and others to get together at Christmastime.

VERIFYING THE EMAILS’ AUTHENTICITY

Patterico.com was provided these emails yesterday by a trusted source. The source indicated that they could not reveal where they had obtained the emails, but did say that the emails were obtained in a legal manner. It is impossible to verify to an absolute certainty that they are authentic, but several aspects of the emails withstand scrutiny.

The emails were provided to Patterico.com in an unredacted form, which allowed verification of the email addresses used. The email address for Olson’s partner is indeed a genuine email address. A Google search of the email address for Walker shows that it is associated with two Web domains. One, VRWalkerCo.com, was registered in May 2002. The other, JudgeWalker.com, was registered on March 14, 2011, about a month after Walker retired. Neither domain appears to currently host a web site. The administrative contact for both domains is Vaughn R. Walker of San Francisco.

Patterico.com received these emails yesterday morning, and emailed both Walker and Olson’s law partner within hours, at the email addresses set forth in the emails, requesting comment. A lawyer with Olson’s law firm called Patterico.com yesterday evening to ask for details about the emails, and said he would attempt to contact Olson’s partner to see if he would be willing to speak about them. As of the publishing of this post, however, neither Walker nor Olson’s partner has yet responded to requests for comment.

Patterico.com did not have a chance to contact any of the parties defending Proposition 8, in part because the proprietor was asked to keep the matter strictly confidential until the post was published. (The source did agree to have Patterico.com attempt to contact Walker and Olson’s partner before publication.)

THE EMAILS’ SIGNIFICANCE

This blog post is a piece of journalism, breaking a story that should be of public interest regarding the conduct of a former jurist on a significant case. This site does not advocate an anti-gay rights agenda, and the proprietor of this web site is a supporter of gay marriage (although he disapproves of the imposition of gay marriage on society through judicial fiat).

Nor does this web site assert that Walker, Olson, or Olson’s partner has engaged in any breach of legal ethics. Walker’s views on the decision are no secret: he has spoken since retirement of his belief that the case was appropriately brought and that his decision was correct. It is not shocking that a judge would defend a decision he has already made.

But the behavior of Walker, as revealed by these emails, creates the appearance of a partisan rather than an impartial former jurist who simply believes he issued a correct ruling. Walker was so invested in his ruling that he wanted to watch the appellate courts’ argument himself. He went out of his way to make sure that he consulted with the winning side to help them prevail in the appellate courts. Specifically, he sought to learn whether his attendance at the appellate arguments would be acceptable to the prevailing party — and when told it would not be, he deferred to the prevailing party’s media strategy. All of this, cumulatively, suggests an emotional investment in the outcome of the case. The emails are likely to reinforce the widely held perception among Prop. 8 supporters that Walker was less than impartial in his rulings during the trial.

The Supreme Court hears the gay marriage cases next week, on March 26 and 27.

636 Responses to “EXCLUSIVE: EMails Show Prop. 8 Judge Sought Ted Olson’s Advice On Whether to Attend Supreme Court Argument on Gay Marriage”

  1. It does make him seem a cheerleader for gay marriage, rather than a man who judged the case on merits, as you say.

    Interesting.

    MayBee (d48d90)

  2. If Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy happens to read Patterico, it might make a difference.

    The doubtful Dana (3e4784)

  3. Hohophobe

    JD (4bb5d1)

  4. After all, we already know that Justice Kennedy takes his decisions based on a wide range of sources, such as foreign law and what he believes to be societal growth, and excluding only inconvenient things like the Constitution.

    The snarky Dana (3e4784)

  5. I don’t at all doubt the authenticity, but “obtained in a legal manner”? Really? That’s frankly hard to believe, & I’d love to see Gibson Dunn comment on *that*!!

    David Garrow (bcfab7)

  6. I agree with the claims that he (to put it kindly) mishandled the case. However, I don’t see anything wrong with his (1) wanting to see his decision upheld and (2) his being interested in seeing in action the guy arguing to uphold his decision. A judge shouldn’t not care in whether a decision of his is upheld or reversed.

    Does it look bad? Perhaps, to those not bothering to think it through.

    steve (369bc6)

  7. Mr. Errorstain is not going to be happy with you Patterico.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  8. My opinion, FWIW, is that the main issue is that the judge who ruled on Prop. 8 had an undisclosed personal interest in ruling the way he did. My reading of the emails suggests that the main concern is that this fact would again be brought into focus and the previous “dismissal” of it would be put up to ridicule and possibly as a reason to overturn the ruling simply based on that and asking a lower court to look at it again and do the SCOTUS “dodge when you can, make it narrow when you can’t”.

    But again, that is my non-lawyer view of such things.
    Turn it around, and had a judge upheld it, then later found out to be a member of a Christian congregation with an overtly traditional marriage proponent as pastor, would the same people have said it was no big deal?
    I assume lawyers and judges are like everyone else, some people are friends and some are not, and it is often easier to be friends with people you agree with. In regards to that, it is sensible to me to say that there was nothing unethical in the emails themselves or the behavior they reflect.

    But the original fact, that the person who struck down Prop. 8 had an undisclosed personal interest, I think makes the ruling a travesty (just as it would have been in my alternative scenario above), and anything that would remind people of those facts would want to be hidden as a strategy for those looking for the SCOTUS to uphold the decision.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  9. Ruh Roh.

    It seems you have confirmed the suspicions of a LOT of people. This guy should never have been allowed to hear this case.

    NOW you can run out and get those statements from the Prop 8 people. I wonder how long the good judge can “manage to duck” the “barrage” of phone calls he’s gonna be getting over the ensuing days. I love the smell of scandal in the morning.

    And I thought you were gonna report on something boring like the LA Times being bought out by the Koch brothers.

    Bets (5781f3)

  10. The emails are likely to reinforce the widely held perception among Prop. 8 supporters that Walker was less than impartial in his rulings during the trial.

    But, but – it’s not like Walker had a private server with videos of donkeys head-butting men who were trying to take a leak!

    bridget (55e4a2)

  11. But the behavior of Walker, as revealed by these emails, creates the appearance of a partisan rather than an impartial former jurist who simply believes he issued a correct ruling. Walker was so invested in his ruling that he wanted to watch the appellate courts’ argument himself.

    I don’t get that at all. It’s obviously going to be an historical day in the Supreme Court, and he wants to attend, just like I would or millions of others.

    Specifically, he sought to learn whether his attendance at the appellate arguments would be acceptable to the prevailing party — and when told it would not be, he deferred to the prevailing party’s media strategy. All of this, cumulatively, suggests an emotional investment in the outcome of the case.

    “Emotional investment”? Deferring to Olsen’s media strategy? That’s some pretty heavy reading-between-the-lines.

    By the way, Ted Olsen, as former solicitor general for the Bush Administration, has been around for years, and no doubt has been praised by many justices. It wouldn’t surprise me one could unearth a transcript of a sitting Supreme Court justice saying kind things about Olsen at some symposium. It doesn’t mean they have a “cozy” or “personal” relationship. It’s called professional courtesy. I emphasize what you wrote: neither Walker, Olsen, or Olsen’s partner engaged in any breach of legal ethics.… including (I would add) the appearance of partisanship.

    Verdict: Non-story.

    Kman (5576bf)

  12. I don’t get that at all.

    SHOCKING

    JD (4bb5d1)

  13. Looks like the fix was in all along. This ain’t justice, and it sure as hell ain’t democracy, it’s sub rosa social engineering by self-interested partisans subverting the results of an electoral decision.

    ropelight (65d38f)

  14. Patterico, I don’t think some people are getting this. I was raised by an attorney. I grew up around lawyers. Half of my family is in law. So I get why this looks really bad.

    You might need to break this down and clarify it.

    Bets (5781f3)

  15. The federal bar and a lot judges know each other on a casual basis. Not a big deal

    John (f71bcd)

  16. If it is a non-story, why did Walker ever think it was a concern in the first place, and why did Olson suggest he not attend?

    It seems reasonable to me that any judge, who had opportunity, would find it intellectually rewarding to hear his opinion argued before the SCOTUS, and his appearance would not have been a surprise.

    The fact that they made an issue out of it themselves reveals it to be a relevant issue. (I’m sure there is a legal phrase for that, sort of like admission against interest or something).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  17. Verdict: Non-story.

    ShorterSlightly longer version: Move along folks, nothing to see here, move along.

    G Joubert (e1cfec)

  18. I can’t say that this was shocking in the slightest. Judge Walker was selected to hear this case precisely because he had a vested interest in the outcome; even if he had no intentions of marrying his domestic partner, he had an interest in expanding rights for homosexuals in general.

    Had a Catholic judge been the one to hear the case, and he had upheld Proposition 8, you can bet your last euro that our friends on the left would claim that he was unfairly biased because of the official position of the Church. And if Proposition 8 is upheld by the five Catholic justices, you’ll be hearing it as well.

    The so-called Equal Rights Amendment, which held that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex,” was rejected by the states, and therefore, by the specified amendment process, the people have held that the states can consider sex differences in their laws.

    The unsurprised Dana (3e4784)

  19. And the fact that Kman had to comment and try to do damage control likewise shows it is relevant. Kind of like a person wearing a heavy coat, hat, and gloves telling you that it is nice and warm outside.

    And maybe the Koch brothers are watching and are going to buy the LATimes and get that tape after all.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  20. The fix was in, that we knew
    Prop 8 supporters did, too
    The people don’t count
    When the libs mount
    Opposition; they yell that they’ll sue!

    The Limerick Avenger (3e4784)

  21. 17. Doubtless the sitting hermaprodite, who did not recuse self for the Obamacare ruling, will be unimpressed.

    This is sort of like the Northern/Southern divide in the EU. The status quo is untenable, the resolution unliveable.

    Northern/Southern, I’ve seen that dichotomy before, somewheres.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  22. Dana,

    Near as I can tell, federal and state courts have done their level best to discover the ERA lurking within the 14th Amendment.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  23. READY?

    OK!

    gay marriage you so fine you so fine you blow my mind

    gay marriage!

    hey hey

    gay marriage!

    happyfeet + pompoms = cheerleader for gay marriagings (4bf7c2)

  24. The whole fiasco as a whole did enormous damage to the image of the Federal judiciary as neutral arbiter. In ways, just as damaging to that image as a corrupt judge being paid off.

    The emails just cap it off.

    SPQR (768505)

  25. That Kman can’t see how this reinforces the image of Walker as partisan rather than judge, it only confirms my low opinion of Kman’s basic credibility.

    SPQR (768505)

  26. I lived in San Francisco for 37 years. One of the most amazing things about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was how liberal plaintiffs consistently managed to get judges assigned to their cases who were predisposed to sympathize with their viewpoint. There was a judge named Thelton Henderson who was a former head of of the Oakland NAACP who seemed to catch all the civil rights cases. Someone should investigate the inner workings of that court.

    Charlie Davis (35738e)

  27. Now maybe someone will hack into the e-mails of Justice Clarence Thomas to his friends in the legal world, and publish the fun parts.

    Richard Winger (2e7632)

  28. Winger, you are making an accusation that these emails were “hacked”. Prove it.

    SPQR (768505)

  29. That Kman can’t see how this reinforces the image of Walker as partisan rather than judge…

    Oh, I can certainly understand how people already predisposed to see what they want to see will make something out of this. You see that a lot with birthers and truthers, too. Objectively however, this is a non-story.

    Frankly, I think the bigger story is how a deputy D.A. got access to the emails of a private law firm. If I were a law firm in the area that opposed the D.A’s office in court, I would find that a little disturbing.

    Kman (5576bf)

  30. If I were you I would have leaked this to a conservative newspaper under the condition that they keep your name out of it. I’ve got to think that, regardless of the legality of it, leaking the emails of a retired judge is not going to be good for the career of a government lawyer. And to the extent this story gets national coverage (not very likely, I think), most news sources will try to make the story more about you than about the judge. Good luck, and I hope they don’t arm-twist you into retiring your blog, which is an asset to the country.

    David Pittelli (7ad332)

  31. Consistent with many others I am opposed to gay marriage by judicial fiat. I am also opposed to gay marriage on very narrow grounds which deals with the raising of children. (though I am not opposed to gay’s/lesbians raising their natural born children).

    There is an active movement based on shoddy social science (at least very shoddy in my view) that children raised by gay parents have equal outcomes with children raised by normal parents. Several people may disagree, but I find it highly unlikely that children raised by gay parents are going to reach adulthood and not have a warped view of normal and natural human behavior.

    Joe (debac0)

  32. Kman, using the word “objectively” is great comedy. You should do stand-up.

    SPQR (768505)

  33. Dear Patterico,

    What a great scoop. Congratulations and thank you.

    Yours truly,

    ThOR

    ThOR (0d3941)

  34. This is not a disinterested judge. And although the 9th Circuit was ok with a rigged record, the Supreme Court might not be.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  35. including (I would add) the appearance of partisanship.

    Walker is gay or bisexual, or whatever. That alone is going to make him very emotionally invested in the case and its ultimate outcome. Plus, it seems that (perhaps for genetic reasons?) homo- or bisexuality gives an extra kick of social-cultural leftism, if you will, to those who have that characteristic, and I rarely see that not being evident in most GLBTers, Walker included. That’s regardless of such people’s party registration, certainly regardless of whether such people are so-called economic conservatives or centrists.

    I’d give Walker some props — or not want to paint him with the broad brush of partisanship — if his opinions on other social issues were truly conservative or very sensible. But I’d be surprised if his brain works that way. And the following verifies my suspicions.


    stanfordlawyer.law.stanford.edu: For example, in 1984, Walker was at a meeting of the Lawyers’ Club of San Francisco. Dianne Feinstein (BA ’55) (then mayor now U.S. senator) had introduced an ordinance to ban possession of handguns in San Francisco, and the club voted to endorse the ban. Walker says that ordinance “flew directly in the face of state law, but in any event it seemed like a good idea. I fully supported it.

    ^ For any jurist to be such a fluff head — to be so flippant about “state law,” much less the 2nd Amendment — means he or she fits my theory about the way that homosexuality seems to make most (not all, but most) people with that aberration prone to being deficient in basic common sense.

    Mark (bc9a80)

  36. Maybe Pat is trying to get fired. Oh, about those e-mails, anybody who thinks judges are routinely unbiased please raise your hand.

    glenn (647d76)

  37. Yes, glenn, judges are routinely unbiased. In the first place they are mostly professionals who take their duty seriously and in the second place the cases and the litigants are not that all-fired important to them. (Unlike Vaugn Walker.)

    nk raises hand (c5b7ef)

  38. “Frankly, I think the bigger story is how a deputy D.A. got access to the emails of a private law firm.”

    Kman – Who said Patterico got access to the emails of a private law firm?

    Also, if it is a non-story as you claim, what difference does the day job of the person breaking it first make?

    Can you at least try to maintain the pretense of a consistent position?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  39. Kmart is objectively predictable.

    JD (4bb5d1)

  40. Patterico, I don’t think some people are getting this. I was raised by an attorney. I grew up around lawyers. Half of my family is in law. So I get why this looks really bad.

    You might need to break this down and clarify it.

    Comment by Bets (5781f3) — 3/22/2013 @ 7:56 am

    I second that. Patterico, can you break this down for the non-lawyers in your audience?

    (Without saying too much about what I do, let it be said that if I pulled something like that, I would probably lose my job.)

    bridget (55e4a2)

  41. Mr Winger wrote:

    Now maybe someone will hack into the e-mails of Justice Clarence Thomas to his friends in the legal world, and publish the fun parts.

    Justice Thomas doesn’t speak in court. What makes you think that he uses e-mail?

    The snarky Dana (3e4784)

  42. Objectively, Walker should have recused himself, but as with Henderson, or formerly Reinhardt, fat chance that happens.

    narciso (3fec35)

  43. I thought that impartial meant that a judge shouldn’t care which side wins. He shouldn’t care whether Olson is brilliant. If his decision is upheld, then he can take gratification. But if his decision is overturned, then he can see it as a learning experience.

    Being impartial, a judge should not have a rooting interest nor an emotional investment in having his own decisions upheld.

    aunursa (7014a8)

  44. Kman – Who said Patterico got access to the emails of a private law firm?

    I didn’t mean to suggest that Patterico himself has access obviously, but that emails from a private law firm are ending up the hands of a D.A.

    Better?

    Kman (5576bf)

  45. Has Vaughn Walker married his partner, out of curiosity?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  46. Being impartial, a judge should not have a rooting interest nor an emotional investment in having his own decisions upheld.

    Why not?

    If a judge’s decision is upheld by a higher court, especially if the higher court adopts the judge’s reasoning, that’s affirmation that the judge got it right.

    Don’t we want judges to have an interest in “getting it right”? I think so. They should have a professional (if not personal) interest that their decisions be upheld.

    Kman (5576bf)

  47. Kman wrote:

    Frankly, I think the bigger story is how a deputy D.A. got access to the emails of a private law firm. If I were a law firm in the area that opposed the D.A’s office in court, I would find that a little disturbing.

    Our host had previously written:

    Patterico.com was provided these emails yesterday by a trusted source. The source indicated that they could not reveal where they had obtained the emails, but did say that the emails were obtained in a legal manner.

    This indicates that our host already had concerns about this question, and made specific efforts to keep himself legal. The e-mails passed through at least one filter, and possibly more, and our host has made a good faith presentation that the e-mails were legally obtained.

    As for his intra-office situation, one would suspect his boss knew in advance, but who knows. I hope that the light at the end of his rope’s prediction doesn’t come true.

    The Dana who isn't an attorney (3e4784)

  48. Don’t we want judges to have an interest in “getting it right”? I think so. They should have a professional (if not personal) interest that their decisions be upheld.

    For the same reason that an NFL official should not have a rooting interest or an emotional investment in whether his ruling on a close play is upheld or overturned by a replay review.

    The official will want to get calls correct. But he shouldn’t have a rooting interest or emotional investment in it. If his call is overturned, so be it.

    aunursa (7014a8)

  49. All judges should care that their conduct and rulings are in accordance with the law and judicial ethics. Not the same thing as conspiring with one of the parties to put the best face forward on appeal.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  50. The official will want to get calls correct. But he shouldn’t have a rooting interest or emotional investment in it. If his call is overturned, so be it.

    If you want something, by definition have an emotional investment in it. It may or may not be consuming, but it is an emotional investment.

    Kman (5576bf)

  51. That’s the issue. Vaughn Walker consuming his emotional investment.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  52. Raise your hand if kmart’s schtick surprises you.

    JD (4bb5d1)

  53. Does anyone feel disrespected by commenters that don’t even bother to consider the meaning of their words in logical reduction?

    Like putting the correct answer down for a problem asking for the setup and work.

    I mean its the right answer, why does it have to be mine?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  54. “Better?”

    Kman – Absolutely not. Since Patterico has not said anything about the source of the emails other than that they were obtained legally, your implication is that they came from a Gibson, Dunn source which would potentially compromise future cases where they are on the other side from the D.A.’s office. If that is not the implication you meant to leave I suggest that you retract your comment and apologize.

    You have no idea whether the emails came from a source close to Vaughn or Olson’s partner.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  55. Kman – Or even somebody else involved in the case.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  56. I’m a complete judicial illiterate, but the impression I have is that Walker tossed the will of the people of his state on ad hoc grounds.

    The jurisprudential quality of his decision is, given my understanding, which is near nil, crap. A higher court has essentially no guidance, its just an answer on paper.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  57. This site does not advocate an anti-gay rights agenda, and the proprietor of this web site is a supporter of gay marriage

    In my case, your blog and its various entries have forced me to look more closely at certain issues and controversies. So thanks to Patterico.com and the era of the internet — where info is far easier to obtain than in the past — I’ve had my eyes opened up wide. Previously, I had only a vague knowledge of the life history of particular newsmakers (from politicians to celebrities), of religious stories like Sodom and Lot, of polygamy and Islamism, of the Boy Scouts and pedophilia, of research on human behavior in general.

    Because of this blog entry I made an effort to look more closely at Vaughn, and I now realize that the gnashing of teeth of certain rightwing critics of his — who’ve labeled him as a “liberal” upon the day of his ruling — were being overly simplistic about him. I thought his credentials with Republicans meant such conservatives were overreaching. But I found my own “smoking gun” about him and the slight suspicions I had a few years ago upon learning he was gay, and therefore what made him tick, finally jelled.

    I originally was more neutral or a bit agnostic about “GLBT,” about same-sex marriage, perhaps closer to your POV. But not any longer. That’s because as each day goes by, I realize the cliche that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” becomes more and more self-evident.

    Mark (bc9a80)

  58. Er, I’m not an expert in legal ethics, but aren’t these emails not protected by various doctrines that protect normal communications with attorneys? Walker isn’t Olson’s client, so there’s no attorney-client privilege.

    Attorney work product likewise does not apply, unless one wants to argue that the judge is somehow helping out on the case.

    Of course, ‘not protected by various privileges’ is not the same thing as ‘totally public, please publish,’ but it’s worth pointing out that these communications are not as confidential as most communications with lawyers are.

    bridget (55e4a2)

  59. You have no idea whether the emails came from a source close to Vaughn or Olson’s partner.

    You’re right; I don’t know. Nobody except Patterico and the source knows. And that’s precisely why I say that might become the “bigger story”. Patterico may be comfortable in his assertion that the emails were legally obtained, but I seriously doubt that his assurance will satisfy Olsen, Olsen’s partner and Vaughn.

    Kman (5576bf)

  60. I have is that Walker tossed the will of the people of his state on ad hoc grounds.

    And it’s not necessarily even Patterico’s report on Vaughn and his emails that really make that blatantly obvious to me. It’s also the lazy way the judge approached the issue of a ban on handguns way back in 1984 that make him look truly like a hack.

    BTW, and based on that, conservative critics of Vaughn since his ruling on Proposition 8, in their labeling him as being of the left, were NOT being overly simplistic about him. I originally thought they were, and assumed he actually leaned a bit more to the right. Wrong!

    Mark (bc9a80)

  61. The jurisprudential quality of his decision is, given my understanding, which is near nil, crap. A higher court has essentially no guidance, its just an answer on paper.

    It’s not. It’s 136 pages, with detailed findings of fact and lengthy discussion of the relevant law. You might want to read it (PDF). Disagree with the legal reasoning if you want, but it’s not “nothing”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  62. “If you want something, by definition have an emotional investment in it. It may or may not be consuming, but it is an emotional investment.”

    Kman – Like suggesting Patterico might be fired for writing this post even though it is a non-story because it suggests he has access to the emails of a private law firm.

    You didn’t even think through the implications of what you wrote, did you? That was pure knee jerk emotionalism. It’s just more of the Gay Gestapo tactics which have surrounded Proposition 8 since it’s its origin and you should be ashamed of yourself.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  63. When someone of the stature of a judge skirts around and appears to render a decision that works to his favor has cheated.

    OldSarg (0c10e8)

  64. but I seriously doubt that his assurance will satisfy Olsen, Olsen’s partner and Vaughn.

    Your appropriate conjunction is “or”, not “and.” Patterico need not have the approval of all three in order to have had legal access to the emails; his informant only needs to have obtained them legally from one source. As per above, they aren’t protected communications.

    bridget (55e4a2)

  65. Let it be said, to make it clear that Kman has no reason to complain about being routinely discounted, I agree with his point that I think a judge, especially one that is retired and can make the trip without taking off work, could reasonably want to hear a case of his argued before the SCOTUS.

    But, as I said earlier, the fact that they themselves thought it would be an issue shows that it is/was, whether Kman wants to note the obvious or not.

    Specific legalish question:
    Could the SCOTUS simply say, “We think the judge in the case was prejudiced, try it again in District Court before a different judge or a panel of judges”? Or if they wanted to do that would they have done that previously without hearing the arguments?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  66. Daley:

    Kman – Like suggesting Patterico might be fired for writing this post even though it is a non-story because it suggests he has access to the emails of a private law firm.

    More reading between the lines. I never said (nor thought) anything like that.

    Maybe a little less inferring for you, huh?

    Kman (5576bf)

  67. Now that P has the reputation of publishing, unlike the NYT in 3 days of the Condor, I am looking for Benghazi-related emails next.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  68. 61. Which opinion we can hardly consider weighty, given the earlier pronouncement that ‘ends justify means’.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  69. The jurisprudential quality of his decision is, given my understanding, which is near nil, crap.

    His susceptibility to mediocrity is obvious to me based on the gut reactions rattling around in that brain of his, as described below. It certainly shows how lighthearted he can be about re-making or flouting existing laws.


    stanfordlawyer.law.stanford.edu: For example, in 1984, Walker was at a meeting of the Lawyers’ Club of San Francisco. Dianne Feinstein (BA ’55) (then mayor now U.S. senator) had introduced an ordinance to ban possession of handguns in San Francisco, and the club voted to endorse the ban. Walker says that ordinance “flew directly in the face of state law, but in any event it seemed like a good idea. I fully supported it.”

    Mark (bc9a80)

  70. 65. Good question, second.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)


  71. I didn’t mean to suggest that Patterico himself has access obviously, but that emails from a private law firm are ending up the hands of a D.A.
    - @44 KMan

    The emails are ending up in the hands of a blogger. Patterico clearly states that the writings on this blog and the blog itself

    “..reflect personal opinions by the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author’s employer.”

    Therefore, his job has nothing to do with this. I think this is very clear.

    Onto the case: While I would agree that it isn’t a surprise that a judge is interested in where his verdicts end up, I do think the Walker case presents an interesting, though subtle, point: Walker was to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in which California voters voted to ban gay marriage. Walker was not ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage itself.

    The history was this:

    California voters voted in 2000 on Proposition 22. The result was that only opposite-sex couples could marry since it added to the Family Section code:

    Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

    The California Supreme Court then struck down Proposition 22 because they found that it was an equality issue, in the court’s words:

    In sum, we conclude that statutes imposing differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation should be viewed as constitutionally suspect under the California Constitution’s equal protection clause.

    However, the decision also points out that California code already defined marriage as between opposite-sex couples:

    Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary

    Thus, while Proposition 22 specifically outlawed gay marriage, it wasn’t the case that gay couple’s could marry because of how the Family Code had already defined marriage. So, is Walker merely upholding a decision made by the Supreme Court in response to Prop 22 or was he biased given that he is gay and could potentially benefit from the decisions? I suspect judicial activism is at play and the emails prove it. Just see Walker’s behavior after the ruling: he has given several talks on how his decision plays in with civil rights suggesting that, at the very least, he had his mind made up before he ruled on the case and was planning to rule on the side of the CA Supreme Court. Not to mention the spectacle he made of the case, either. Taken all together, I think the emails are important.

    It is in the best interest of everybody that the courts have a duty to remain unbiased and stick to the facts within the case instead of deciding upon their own predilections.

    Oh, and I support gay marriage, though this isn’t the best way to go about it.

    ratbeach (f5aad4)

  72. Specific legalish question:
    Could the SCOTUS simply say, “We think the judge in the case was prejudiced, try it again in District Court before a different judge or a panel of judges”? Or if they wanted to do that would they have done that previously without hearing the arguments?

    Not to be glipb, but it’s SCOTUS. They can say anything they want.

    But it’s HIGHLY unlikely, I think, that they will say the judge was prejudiced in the absence of overwhelming evidence. Remember, all the SCOTUS justices, from Scalia to Sotomayor, get accused of “personal prejudice” all the time, and I don’t think any of them are receptive to that criticism.

    Also, as I pointed out, there IS a 136 page opinion written by Vaughn, and it does NOT say, “I think Prop 8 is unconstitutional because I’m gay.” Vaughn actually sets out his legal reasoning, and the Supreme Court can accept it or reject it. But they really have to address the legal conclusion of Vaughn, one way or the other. It would look unconvincing to punt that away by saying Vaughn was biased.

    Kman (5576bf)

  73. Probably Patterico got these emails from a rapebarn.

    MayBee (d48d90)

  74. 73. Snicker.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  75. Not to be glipb,

    Why stop now ?!

    JD (4bb5d1)

  76. 26. “…Thelton Henderson…”

    Update: Now this “unbiased” judge sits as monitor of the Oakland Police Department as the result of a negotiated civil rights settlement where he has unfettered authority to appoint other monitors and second-guess all administrative decisions. No concern is given to actual interdiction of criminal activity, only to the administration of complaints about police behavior.

    Another example of how the judiciary has tarnished whatever reputation it may have once had.

    gramps (bf1b3d)

  77. you might be good at basketball you might be good at track

    but when we take it to the rapebarn

    yeah you better all step BACK

    gay marriage! gay marriage! WOOOOOT! gay marriage!

    happyfeet + pompoms = cheerleader for gay marriagings (4bf7c2)

  78. MD in Philly re your question @65.

    This was by writ of certiorari, so the Court’s procedure is according to it’s Rule 16. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_16 In a nutshell, the court can reverse and remand for retrial before a different judge even now with writ granted. And it could have done that, or granted any other relief including relief on the merits summarily, before granting the writ. The only difference is that having granted the writ, there will be full briefing and arguments. Which may be a hint that they want to set precedent now.

    (Ignore Kman, it’s an idiot.)

    nk (c5b7ef)

  79. NK, you’re not a lawyer (obviously) and don’t know what you are talking about.

    The disposition of the case has nothing to do with the procedure that brought it to the court. Rule 16 has nothing to do with the disposition of the case, except to say that there IS disposition of a case if writ is granted.

    Kman (5576bf)

  80. From day one I thought this particular federal judge should have recused himself from this particular case. I wonder if Boies and Olson, both top notch lawyers and heterosexual men arguing for gay marriage might not have greatly preferred to have had a cleaner or less suspect Prop 8 “win” from federal court to defend on its merits at the Supreme Court.

    elissa (0b96fa)

  81. “More reading between the lines. I never said (nor thought) anything like that.

    Maybe a little less inferring for you, huh?”

    Kman – I’m perfectly fine with what I wrote. Where is your apology for what you wrote?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  82. “MD in Philly re your question @65…”

    I feel like the simple answer in the case at hand would be that since Vaughn Walker is retired, a standard remand will place the issues before a different judge no matter what.

    Leviticus (91e44c)

  83. It’s rather clear they don’t care, ‘fundamental transformation’ requires that we ignore those ill considered impediments to positive rights.

    narciso (3fec35)

  84. Regardless of Vaughn’s own personal situation the fact of the matter is that Olsen presented real legal arguments rationally rather than spouting religious rhetoric and fear.

    NY DA (27b82c)

  85. Quite disappointed that Patterico supports the radical gay agenda. The issue isn’t terribly hard to figure out: the radicals don’t care about gays getting married, rather they want to obtain a state-sanctioned legitimacy that will help normalize homosexuality.

    CK (ae4bf1)

  86. 79. This here court is satisfied nk is indeed a lawyer, a curmudgeon on occasion, and opinionated generally, but heard.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  87. I wonder if Boies and Olson, both top notch lawyers and heterosexual men arguing for gay marriage might not have greatly preferred to have had a cleaner or less suspect Prop 8 “win” from federal court to defend on its merits at the Supreme Court.

    Actually, elissa, the case was so open-and-shut that I wonder if the Prop 8 proponents didn’t just throw in the towel early on. They hardly put up a case at all – they ceded a lot of arguments; they only put on two expert witnesses, etc.

    Many court observers thought that at the time — it was as if the Prop 8 proponents didn’t care if they won or lost. It was as if they figured that it was SCOTUS-bound anyway, so they didn’t try.

    Kman (5576bf)

  88. “I wonder if Boies and Olson, both top notch lawyers and heterosexual men arguing for gay marriage might not have greatly preferred to have had a cleaner or less suspect Prop 8 “win” from federal court to defend on its merits at the Supreme Court.”

    - elissa

    That’s an interesting thought, but if the case gets decided on anything but the merits (e.g. remanded because SCOTUS thinks Walker should have recused himself) there probably won’t be a discussion of the merits and any discussion of te merits that does take place would probably be dicta. So they’ll have wasted their time, but not foreclosed the possibility of a discussion on the merits in the future.

    Leviticus (91e44c)

  89. 85. I don’t think it at all plausible Rico supports a ‘radical gay agenda’.

    More likely he’s not a pugilist.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  90. “They hardly put up a case at all – they ceded a lot of arguments; they only put on two expert witnesses, etc.”

    Kman – Read the transcript. Why would they need expert witnesses when they had plenty of testimony from case law which supported their position which Walker went nuts on.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  91. Still wondering whether or not Vaughn Walker eventually married his partner, if anyone knows…

    Leviticus (91e44c)

  92. NK, you’re not a lawyer (obviously)

    Oh Boy, the Gods shall descend from Mt. Olympus and lay a world of hurt on somebody.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  93. Or call it evidence instead of testimony.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  94. Kman – Read the transcript. Why would they need expert witnesses when they had plenty of testimony from case law which supported their position which Walker went nuts on.

    *facepalm*

    If you are going to make factual assertions in court, like, “gay marriage is bad for children”, then you need to put in factual evidence for it (e.g., an expert who has done studies, etc.). That’s what trial courts are for. The proponents had a bunch of experts lined up, but only used two (one, really — the second one wasn’t an expert on marriage, children, etc.)

    Kman (5576bf)

  95. 61. It’s not. It’s 136 pages, with detailed findings of fact and lengthy discussion of the relevant law. You might want to read it (PDF). Disagree with the legal reasoning if you want, but it’s not “nothing”.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 10:03 am

    It’s worse than nothing. It’s a pack of lies. Walker accepted the testimony of pro-gay marriage activists as “experts” when their expert testimony was nothing more than a restatement of their advocacy.

    Meanwhile, on the other side of the ledger Walker ruled that the attorneys defending prop 8 had presented no evidence that the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman or that marriage was linked to procreation because they hadn’t made historical figures available to testify.

    “I don’t mean to be flip, but Blackstone didn’t testify. Kingsley Davis didn’t testify. What testimony in this case supports the proposition?” (3039:16-18.)

    I am sure Kmart will be along to try to justify why it’s perfectly reasonable a judge should demand a legal authority such as Sir Blackstone (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780) should have been in his court giving live testimony. Especially when the point is to establish that marriage only being between a man and a woman is something deeply rooted in American history and tradition.

    In Judge Walker’s court, you can only prove something is deeply rooted in American history and tradition if those historical figures are resurrected to testify before him. So if the third Congress had something to say on the matter (not that the third Congress did, but the prop 8 side did enter into evidence certain acts of Congress) well then you had better have each and every member of the third Congress (4 March 1793 – 4 March 1795) in his courtroom to testify. Else it doesn’t count.

    Got that? You can’t prove there’s a history behind something in Judge Walker’s court with actual history.

    So little does it count that Judge Walker edits the words of attorneys he doesn’t like who try to enter the written record of the history of something into evidence to make it appear they didn’t try.

    So this in the trial transcript:

    Cooper: Your Honor, these materials are before you. They are evidence before you.… But, your Honor, you don’t have to have evidence for this from these authorities. This is in the cases themselves. The cases recognize this one after another. [3039:19-3040:1]

    Walker: “I don’t have to have evidence?” [3040:2]

    Cooper: “You don’t have to have evidence of this point if one court after another has recognized—let me turn to the California cases on this.” [3040:3-5]

    Becomes this in the decision:

    You don’t have to have evidence of this point.

    According to Walker those pesky prop 8 people not only didn’t provide evidence, they told him he didn’t need evidence. Which is what he needed to say to arrive at his foregone conclusion.

    Yeah, Kmart, let’s talk. Let us hear how you see a whole lot of nothing here except an impartial judge. It’ll be fun plumbing the depths you’re willing to descend to to pretend Walker wasn’t anything but a rabid activist.

    I’ve got more.

    But first, as a warm-up:

    Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Judges must “move the strike zone.”

    From the conclusion:

    Case by case, what judges do and must do is take account of the pitcher and the batter in the legal arena, watch the windup, the throw, the curve, and the delivery and then, where they believe appropriate, move the strike zone.

    As the author notes, this is equivalent to saying a judge must move the goalposts when appropriate. Or in other words when necessary to achieve the desired results.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  96. The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is by statute. The statute says that in this case jurisdiction can only exist by way of certiorari. Supreme Court Rule 16 says that’s what we do when that happens.

    (Kman is still an idiot.)

    nk (c5b7ef)

  97. Comment by CK (ae4bf1) — 3/22/2013

    FWIW, Patterico has gone on record that he thinks same-sex unions should be legal and should get there by legislation, not judges.
    I am unclear whether he agrees with those who want marriaged redefined as including SS or whether he wants a SS equivalent but not call it marriage or whether it doesn’t matter to him.

    between nk and Kman, it should not be a question as to whose opinion I respect more (it isn’t Kman, for those who are new here)

    I think Prop. 8 was not really defended by the State of CA (who was supposed to).

    If it was me, if I thought I had a strong case, I wouldn’t confuse the issue by knowingly going before a judge whose impartiality could be questioned to throw the ruling into doubt. but I’m not, and it wasn’t up to me.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  98. Pugilist? I don’t get it.

    He says he does not oppose “gay rights”, a formulation used by radical homosexual activists to pretend that they were given a right to gay marriage back in 1868 when the 14th amendment was passed.

    CK (ae4bf1)

  99. 87. They hardly put up a case at all – they ceded a lot of arguments; they only put on two expert witnesses, etc.

    Many court observers thought that at the time — it was as if the Prop 8 proponents didn’t care if they won or lost. It was as if they figured that it was SCOTUS-bound anyway, so they didn’t try.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 10:58 am

    Kmart flat lies. Just like Walker.

    Kmart, do you think the rest of us aren’t capable of finding the transcript that contradicts everything you and Walker say?

    Steve57 (60a887)

  100. This is meaningless, pointless, and laughable.

    Bill (e2ac03)

  101. The fact that you think this is relevant is hilarious. Or, rather it would be funny if you weren’t such a douchebag. You disapprove of gay marriage being “forced” on the country via judicial fiat? OH PLEASE. I suppose we should vote on civil rights issues now? More pathetic whining about something that DOES NOT EFFECT YOU IN THE SLIGHTEST. Get a life.

    whatever (a2a72a)

  102. ==the case was so open-and-shut that I wonder if the Prop 8 proponents didn’t just throw in the towel early on.==

    Kman, quite obviously I was not referring to the prop8 proponents at all in my earlier comment so it’s curious you brought them up. My point (as Leviticus understood) was that Boies and Olsen secretly may have preferred that the case be ruled on in exactly the same way due to the merits of the argument– but by a judge without the complication of any appearance of conflict of interest which they’d later need to publicly mitigate. You know, in the same way a truly proud top competitive athlete wants to win any contest for the record books free and clear against a worthy opponent–not because a ref might have been biased in their favor or because their opponent might have had the flu that day.

    elissa (0b96fa)

  103. and for the people whining about prop 8: what exactly is the defense here? That being gay isn’t real? That it’s a choice? How idiotic. Truly. GET OVER IT.

    whatever (a2a72a)

  104. If you’re talking about Judge Walker’s legal hackery then, yes Bill, it’s meaningless, pointless, and laughable. Not even the 9th Circus used it even though they arrived at the same conclusion.

    Apparently once a court imposes gay marriage on a state no matter how dishonestly you can’t disallow gay marriage because gay marriages can’t be undone.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  105. “whatever” perfectly exemplifies the vacuous mind that thinks gay marriage is ok. We could start peeling the onion, but there’s nothing under the onion skin.

    I know. I saw.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  106. 98. He doesn’t care for the fight. Chris Matthews et al., are into discovery of coded racist messages, let’s not be like them. English is like greenbacks, what one does with them matters, not the thing itself.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  107. Here’s some news…I think we all need to recognize that Harvard is not only an academic juggernaut, but it can now be legitimately characterized as “a basketball school.”

    Elephant Stone (c0c6f3)

  108. In the Third Book of Moses, it was written:

    Has Vaughn Walker married his partner, out of curiosity?

    I would think that, by now, Mr Walker could no longer be described as “curious.” :)

    The amused Dana (3e4784)

  109. Frankly, I think the bigger story is how a deputy D.A. got access to the emails of a private law firm. If I were a law firm in the area that opposed the D.A’s office in court, I would find that a little disturbing.

    Am I the only one here equally disturbed by the suspicious lack of a judge weighing out a case on its merits alone as the smarmy insinuation made in the quote above?

    Wow.

    Dana (292dcf)

  110. NK:

    The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is by statute. The statute says that in this case jurisdiction can only exist by way of certiorari.

    Yes, but he wasn’t asking a jurisdictional question. You’re citing something which is true, but non-responsive.

    Steve57:

    According to Walker those pesky prop 8 people not only didn’t provide evidence, they told him he didn’t need evidence.

    Right. They tried to present LAW as FACTUAL EVIDENCE. There is a clear distinction between law and fact, as any lawyer knows. You need to present both. Prop 8 proponents barely put on any factual testimony, except for Blankenhorn (who is now a same-sex marriage advocate BTW). And in court, Blankenhorn admitted that he wrote and agrees with the following statement:

    “I believe that today the principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian persons. In that sense, insofar as we are a nation founded on this principle, we would be more American on the day we permitted same sex marriage than we were the day before.”

    Now if you’re for Prop 8, and that’s your expert witness, you’ve put on a pretty weak case. I don’t think you can blame Walker’s “bias” at that point.

    Kman (5576bf)

  111. 101. Exactly, homosexuals are a matter of no importance whatever as homosexuals.

    There sex life, their private life is of no interest at all.

    So why bother with a twisted use of the term ‘marriage’, its only a word. Half of all first children are born outside the institution traditionally described with the word.

    It means nothing anymore.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  112. Uncle Sam has become the “husband” of half of America.

    Elephant Stone (c0c6f3)

  113. I was going to act like some of the commenters here and state that this story does not appear, to me, to be newsworthy.

    However, I’m noticing something different about the comments here. There’s more of them than usual, and far more personal attacks against the blog’s author than I am accustomed to seeing in typical posts made on this blog. A great number of people here are simultaneously attacking the story as irrelevant and attacking the blog’s author as any number of things.

    This suggests to me that this blog’s author is on to something, and his opponents know it and want to silence him. Curious.

    somebody (b7c4dd)

  114. whatever wrote:

    and for the people whining about prop 8: what exactly is the defense here? That being gay isn’t real? That it’s a choice? How idiotic. Truly. GET OVER IT.

    Whatever’s rant question assumes that the supporters of Proposition 8 are somehow confused or undecided or whatever about the nature of homosexuality, but in that, he’s way off target. Rather, the supporters of Proposition 8, and those opposed to same sex marriage being legal in general, are of the opinion that the state should not grant homosexual relationships the same status as tyhe relationships between legally married heterosexual couples. The proponents are stating, in effect, that society has a perfect right to declare some types of relationships to be societally preferred, to the extent that those relationships receive legal preference and others do not. That would apply to polygamous heterosexual relationships just as much as monogamous homosexual ones.

    The serious Dana (3e4784)

  115. READY???

    OK!

    we brung an agenda

    to rock the hacienda

    SSM there’s no debatin

    the h8rs just be hatin

    gay marriage! gay marriage! WOOOOOT! WOOOOOT! gay marriage!

    happyfeet + pompoms = cheerleader for gay marriagings (4bf7c2)

  116. elissa:

    My point (as Leviticus understood) was that Boies and Olsen secretly may have preferred that the case be ruled on in exactly the same way due to the merits of the argument– but by a judge without the complication of any appearance of conflict of interest which they’d later need to publicly mitigate.

    I understand your point, but the conflict of interest issue is only an issue in a small sector of the public realm. The district court AND the Ninth Circuit rejected the notion that Walker had a conflict of interest, and that portion of the decision is not being appealed to the Supreme Court.

    So while it was once a minor pain in the ass for Boies and Olsen, I don’t think Walker’s alleged “conflict” is a concern for them anymore.

    Kman (5576bf)

  117. Kman misrepresents the dispute over Walker’s own dishonest quotation. Not a surprise.

    SPQR (aabf1e)

  118. Not to point out the obvious, but if a hundred and forty years of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence says that the thing doesn’t apply to gays and lesbians, then XIV doesn’t apply to gays and lesbians. You may want it to, you may feeel that it should, but the Fourteenth Amendment is not a trump card to invalidate legislation and state constitutional amendments with which you disagree.

    In a sane world with judicial restraint, you wouldn’t need anything but that 140 years of case law to determine that no, the Fourteenth Amendment was not passed to force the government to acknowledge the love lives of one group of non-procreative people.

    bridget (55e4a2)

  119. 114. There was a story out of NC the other day wherein a United Methodist congregation had instructed its clergy not to hitch anymore heteros until homos had legal standing to be married.

    I understand fashion is a powerful thing. I recently heard a HS girl(Lutheran) report having to supress the urge to kill another because of a class speech on the subject.

    What bothers me is that these sentiments are commonplace. We might as well be Muslim.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  120. Kmart, you’re a hack. They didn’t just try to present law into evidence but the historical record that the procreation has always been understood to be central to the understanding of marriage.

    Which is exactly what Walker had to airbrush out of his decision to pretend he wasn’t inventing a new right but rather lie and say it was one that always existed and that the equal protection clause guaranteed.

    And you’re avoiding the fact the 9th Circus which desired the same results found Walker’s incoherent ruling so embarrassing they had to find a different basis to arrive at the same foregone conclusion.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  121. Oh, and Kman? nk is an attorney. Save your dishonest sneering for a place that actually still thinks you have credibility.

    SPQR (aabf1e)

  122. A great number of people here are simultaneously attacking the story as irrelevant and attacking the blog’s author as any number of things.

    I’m not “attacking” Patterico for anything. I’m saying that the “leak” (for lack of a better word), and how the emails of a private and prominent law firm came into the hands of a deputy D.A., is a bigger story than the exchange itself. I’m not inferring bad behavior to Patterico; I’m just saying that I suspect a lot of prominent people (Ted Olsen for one) might have a lot of questions/problems with this.

    Kman (5576bf)

  123. 117. Kman misrepresents the dispute over Walker’s own dishonest quotation. Not a surprise.

    Comment by SPQR (aabf1e) — 3/22/2013 @ 11:44 am

    I guess at this point “Kman lies” is about the same as saying “bears s**t in the woods” or “fish f*** in water.”

    Steve57 (60a887)

  124. 122. Plainly he was referring to ‘whatever’ and ‘Bill’. Your presence is unremarkable.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  125. The proponents are stating, in effect, that society has a perfect right to declare some types of relationships to be societally preferred, to the extent that those relationships receive legal preference and others do not.

    Some are also stating the unremarkable proposition that the government does not have any interest in what gay couples do in the bedroom, as nothing they do will ever produce the next generation. However, the same cannot be said of heterosexual couples, whose activities are the sole means of propagating the species.

    (After Lawrence v. Texas, I sort of wonder why anyone cares – you’re not going to be hauled out of your house in handcuffs for your sexual activity, so what’s with the idea that you need a big gold star from the government to feel like your relationship is meaningful? What’s with the idea that a religious or a commitment ceremony is not enough, and that you’re going to feel all ashamed unless Daddy Government gives his blessing and a toast to the groom and groom?)

    bridget (55e4a2)

  126. *facepalm*

    Kman – Aptly sums up your comments here today and most days.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  127. 125. Well put. I was trying for the same ballpark but missed.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  128. 119. There was a story out of NC the other day wherein a United Methodist congregation had instructed its clergy not to hitch anymore heteros until homos had legal standing to be married.

    I understand fashion is a powerful thing. I recently heard a HS girl(Lutheran) report having to supress the urge to kill another because of a class speech on the subject.

    What bothers me is that these sentiments are commonplace. We might as well be Muslim.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/22/2013 @ 11:46 am

    United Methodist Church Continues to Decline in America, but Gains in Africa Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/united-methodist-church-continues-to-decline-in-america-but-gains-in-africa-79384/#ba7OWlu6O4Sp80hF.99

    In Africa the Methodists don’t do the same stupid crap the North Carolinians engage in. Nobody needs a non-Christian Church.

    According to the reports, in 2011 the UMC suffered a decline of nearly 72,000 members, with 18 conferences reporting membership losses of 2 percent or more.

    Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion & Democracy and a practicing Methodist, told The Christian Post that he did not feel confident in the survival of the UMC in America.

    “Methodism in the U.S. has lost membership every year since 1964. It has lost over 4.5 million members. There is nothing in its U.S. policies that can or will reverse the decline in the near future,” said Tooley.
    *

    As an aside, I’ve been watching a lot of talking heads on TV saying the new Pope need to “modernize” and adopt Lindsey Lohan’s approach to gay marriage, contraception, and abortion.

    Hey, boys and girls, I got news. There’s a reason happyfeet wasn’t on the ballot for Pope.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  129. “I’m not “attacking” Patterico for anything.”

    Kman – Then why not explain exactly what you meant in comment 29?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  130. I’d like some attorneys to weigh in on this, but for me the most egregious example of Walker’s emotionalism and lack of professionalism was his decision to conduct a “trial,” the disputed “facts” of which consisted in the entire civilized history of romantic relationships and their role in society, rather than deciding the gay marriage case on summary judgment.

    Courts conduct fact trials on objective matters such as who ran a red light, whether a defendant failed to inspect a defective product, etc. They don’t put witnesses on the stand to establish world-historical truths. Walker’s gambit was only a shade less absurd than conducting a trial on the nature of Truth, or on the nature of The Good. And then he attempted to turn it into a literal, televised show trial.

    Maybe Walker was a good judge once (or maybe not), but by the end of his judicial career, he was out of control.

    Brian (31a878)

  131. A few comments from this attorney:

    - There is no great significance in Walker’s praising Olson’s ability to argue the case. It is common for a judge to praise the advocates’ skills and if you look at the trial transcript in the Prop 8 case, you will see that Walker repeatedly praised the lawyers for both sides. His comment went to Olson’s skills, not the merits of the case. I doubt if anyone involved in the case on either side would disagree with Walker’s assessment of Olson’s abilities.

    - There is nothing shocking in Walker wanting to attend the argument. This is an important case in his former career as a judge. It is rare for any district court judge to get such high profile case and then have that case go before the highest court. In the years ahead, Walker will surely be asked to speak about the case at seminars, bar events, etc. So it is not terribly surprising that he would want to see the argument in person.

    - The commenter “Dana” above seems to be fairly ignorant of the court system. Judge Walker was not “selected” by anyone to hear this case. Federal district court judges are assigned new cases by a random lottery system. It is pretty telling of the mindset of some of the commenters like Dana that they believe with absolute certitude things that aren’t true and about which they have no knowledge.

    - It is unclear from Patterico’s post whether attorneys for the petitioners and any other outside parties were copied on the email. He doesn’t say one way or the other, which is a lapse on Patterico’s part.

    Sam (9ccfad)

  132. Not to point out the obvious, but if a hundred and forty years of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence says that the thing doesn’t apply to gays and lesbians, then XIV doesn’t apply to gays and lesbians.

    And it took a 90 or so before the 14th Amendment was applied to blacks. So I guess the 14th didn’t apply to blacks?

    What’s the cutoff? 125 years? 110? Just curious.

    Kman (5576bf)

  133. ….Walker…creates the appearance of a partisan rather than an impartial former jurist who simply believes he issued a correct ruling. Walker was so invested in his ruling that he wanted to watch the appellate courts’ argument himself. He went out of his way to make sure that he consulted with the winning side to help them prevail in the appellate courts…..All of this, cumulatively, suggests an emotional investment in the outcome of the case. The emails are likely to reinforce the widely held perception among Prop. 8 supporters that Walker was less than impartial in his rulings during the trial.

    The question is, did we really need to see these e-mails to know this?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  134. “I’m not “attacking” Patterico for anything.”

    Kman – Then why not explain exactly what you meant in comment 29?

    Exactly what I said. No more, no less.

    Kman (5576bf)

  135. I believe it is natural for a judge to want to see his rulings upheld.

    But they also do not take it personally if they are reversed.

    Here we seem to have a judge who is taking a personal interest in the case probably due to his sexual orientation.

    Should such a judge have disqualified himself from the case?

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  136. Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/22/2013 @ 10:07 am

    Could the SCOTUS simply say, “We think the judge in the case was prejudiced, try it again in District Court before a different judge or a panel of judges”?

    I think appeals courts only say that when they don’t rule on the merits themselves. That would usually be an appellate court about a district court judge who ruled on a matter of fact, or a jury that ruled on amatter of fact. This is a matter of law, and the Supreme Court will rule on the underlying issue.

    What matters is if Judge Walker was wrong, not if he was biased. (except it is never really so obvious what side on a matetr of law is wrong)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  137. I’d like some attorneys to weigh in on this, but for me the most egregious example of Walker’s emotionalism and lack of professionalism was his decision to conduct a “trial,”

    What? A judge conducts a trial?!? That IS unprofessional!

    …the disputed “facts” of which consisted in the entire civilized history of romantic relationships and their role in society, rather than deciding the gay marriage case on summary judgment.

    Because there were factual questions involved. Specifically, what interest did the State of California have in banning gay marriage (and I realize you can phrase it a number of different ways). So you need evidence on that.

    And then he attempted to turn it into a literal, televised show trial.

    Well, no he didn’t. He didn’t allow cameras in.

    Kman (5576bf)

  138. Comparing this to the civil rights of black people in America is just wrong. On many levels.

    JD (4bb5d1)

  139. Brian, I believe it was necessary to establish homosexuals as a Fourteenth Amendment “suspect class” which they are not now, even after Lawrence and Romer v. Evans. Suspect class would give rise to a higher level of scrutiny (than rational basis) to laws affecting homosexuals.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  140. Brian is of course correct. Walker tried to turn the prop 8 case into the new Scopes Monkey Trial. He wasn’t impartial from the start. Even the plaintiffs were surprised when Walker decided the case couldn’t be decided as a matter of law but that instead he had to put western civilization on trial in order to find it wanting.

    As a further aside:

    Catholic Church shows ‘robust’ growth in U.S. membership, new report says

    Washington D.C., Feb 21, 2010 / 07:47 am (CNA).- The Catholic Church’s membership in the United States grew at the “robust” rate of about 1.5 percent in 2008, according to National Council of Churches’ (NCC) new 2010 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches.

    …There are now an estimated 68.1 million Catholics in the United States.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, whose members are known as Mormons, grew 1.7 percent to almost 5.9 million members. The Assemblies of God grew 1.3 percent to about 2.9 million.

    Other denominations lost membership. The Presbyterian Church (USA) shrank 3.3 percent and now has about 2.9 million members. American Baptist Churches in the USA decreased two percent to 1.4 million, while the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America lost 1.9 percent of its membership, which now stands at 4.7 million.

    I think there’s a lesson here for the GOP which is currently wondering what it should do now.

    The denominations trying to remain “relevant” by chasing the strike zone as Judge Vaughn Walker moves it as he sees fit are the ones losing membership.

    Perhaps the the GOP shouldn’t listen to the fashionistas. Woot! Woot!

    Steve57 (60a887)

  141. Only certain ballot initiatives are acceptable.

    JD (4bb5d1)

  142. And it took a 90 or so before the 14th Amendment was applied to blacks.

    ROFLMAO. So whom, pray tell, was the Fourteenth Amendment designed to protect? White landowners?

    (Yes, I know you’re speaking of Brown v. Board, but any passing understanding of the history of the Fourteenth shows you why Brown was correct and the Walker decision is wrong.)

    bridget (55e4a2)

  143. (Kman is still an idiot.)

    nk (c5b7ef)

  144. One additional point:

    It is not uncommon for judges to know and be friends with the lawyers that come before them. A lawyer might be an old law school chum or a friend from some past social or professional activity. I was on a case where the judge was good friends with and regularly played squash with the law partners of my adversary. None of these social connections mean anything in terms of partiality. And the fact that Walker includes some pleasantries in an email is not news.

    If during the trial, Walker had had a personal relationship with one of the *parties* to the case, that would be a real story. But an email by a former judge asking about attending an appellate argument in a case for which he no longer has any responsibility and tossing off some pleasantries to one of the lawyers is not a story.

    Sam (9ccfad)

  145. Okay, stupid question, regarding something that was said a hundred comments ago: nk is an attorney, right?

    bridget (55e4a2)

  146. 139. Brian, I believe it was necessary to establish homosexuals as a Fourteenth Amendment “suspect class” which they are not now, even after Lawrence and Romer v. Evans. Suspect class would give rise to a higher level of scrutiny (than rational basis) to laws affecting homosexuals.

    Comment by nk (c5b7ef) — 3/22/2013 @ 12:18 pm

    Further proof Walker was biased because, of course, establishing homosexuals as a suspect class is irrelevant to determining if society has a rational interest in defining marriage as a potentially procreative relationship between a man and a woman.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  147. ROFLMAO. So whom, pray tell, was the Fourteenth Amendment designed to protect? White landowners?

    The Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to protect “citizens”. You can read it yourself. It’s in English last time I checked.

    If they just meant it for one group (i.e., blacks), it would have said so.

    Kman (5576bf)

  148. Comment by somebody (b7c4dd) — 3/22/2013 @ 11:37 am

    yes, a few new ad hominem attackers here today, always a good sign of wider readership.

    As I said far above that is relevant to recent posts, I find most interesting the fact that the judge and lawyer involved themselves thought it was something to avoid, and so the question is why did they think it was an issue if no ethics violations were involved, etc.?

    My guess is that the judge becoming more of the news would attract attention to the fact that he ruled on the case even though it was later revealed he had clear personal interest in the matter (I think whether he personally got married or not).

    Just think if it had gone the other way, and the judge affirming Prop. 8 was found to be a nephew of Billy Graham and a supporter of traditional marriage (whether or not in favor of SS civil unions). Do you think the same players would think it not a big deal, nothing to publicize.

    Perhaps it is appropriate to use the phrase, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”, eh?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  149. yes, nk is an attorney

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  150. Further proof Walker was biased because, of course, establishing homosexuals as a suspect class is irrelevant to determining if society has a rational interest in defining marriage as a potentially procreative relationship between a man and a woman.

    Shouldn’t listen to nk.

    Although Walker did say gays were a suspect class, he went on to say it wasn’t necessary to make them a suspect class since Prop 8 failed even the lower standard under the “rational basis” test (excluding same-sex couples from marriage is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest).

    Kman (5576bf)

  151. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to protect “citizens”.

    Yes. Citizens. And they didn’t mean it to protect relationships. Which is why “marriage equality” is nonsensical. Not all relationships were created equal.

    There are a lot of English language references out there, Kmart.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  152. If it is a non-story, why did Walker ever think it was a concern in the first place, and why did Olson suggest he not attend?
    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/22/2013 @ 8:02 am

    ^^^This.^^^

    creeper (49fb3f)

  153. Our states are a vast contrast in values: California focuses on gay marriage while North Dakota defines life as beginning at conception.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  154. Shouldn’t listen to nk.

    I didn’t know you’re a comedian, Kmart.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  155. And this is good journalism, Patterico. Thank you.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  156. Thank you, MD in Philly. I thought so, but was wondering why KMart was so adamant in saying that nk is not a lawyer and is clueless. (The last part is obviously garbage, but there are a lot of non-lawyers out there who understand the law very well.)

    bridget (55e4a2)

  157. Just think if it had gone the other way, and the judge affirming Prop. 8 was found to be a nephew of Billy Graham and a supporter of traditional marriage (whether or not in favor of SS civil unions)

    Or a Catholic?

    I think it’s a little absurd to find someone who doesn’t have a personal opinion on the matter. But we don’t ask judges to be automatons. We ask them to act neutral. Just because Walker was gay does not mean he was biased in the case for same-sex marriage. If that’s true, the I could easily argue that Scalia, a devout Catholic, should recuse himself because his personal proclivities make him “biased” against same-sex marriage.

    Kman (5576bf)

  158. DRJ, I think you’re slightly off target. Not even in Kali did they want to focus on gay marriage until they were made to.

    Then they said NO.

    Gay marriage has to be inflicted on people because otherwise it’s way, way down on the list of things they would think about.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  159. It is irrational to disagree with Judge Walker and Kmart.

    JD (4bb5d1)

  160. Not all relationships were created equal.

    But shouldn’t they be treated equal under the law?

    Kman (5576bf)

  161. But we don’t ask judges to be automatons. We ask them to act neutral. Just because Walker was gay does not mean he was biased in the case for same-sex marriage.

    Nobody ever said that. It’s the fact Walker never even pretended to act in a neutral manner that proved his bias.

    Here’s what the SCOTUS had to say when it blocked Walker’s illegal attempt to broadcast the trial:

    The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.

    That’s just one piece of evidence of Walker’s bias.

    But no, I don’t doubt there are gay judges who could have acted impartially. Walker isn’t one of them. He demonstrated that in myriad ways.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  162. 160.

    Not all relationships were created equal.

    But shouldn’t they be treated equal under the law?

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 12:42 pm

    Do you have a detectable IQ?

    Seattle woman ‘marries’ building in attempt to save it

    Steve57 (60a887)

  163. sometimes i wonder if maybe it would’ve been better if Prop 8 had never passed at all

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  164. KMart, you’re all sorts of turned around and wrong.

    First, the Fourteenth Amendment applies to different groups of people, depending on the clause. The first clause applies to “persons”. The second clause applies to “male [...] citizens”. The first part of the first clause applies to people born “subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]“, and confers citizenship.

    (I’ll also add that the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is legally debatable in its applicability to all babies who are born here.)

    So to say that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to “citizens” is factually incorrect.

    Second, it’s been many years since I read Plessy, but the holding in that case was not that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to blacks; the holding was that separate but equal was acceptable under the Amendment.

    Likewise, the holding of Brown v. Board was not that the Fourteenth Amendment had a hitherto unknown application to a whole group of people; it was that the situation was inherently unequal.

    The premise of the Equal Rights Amendment is that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” did not extend to equal protection for women. The rationale was that the Fourteenth did not, at the time of its ratification, mean to grant men and women equal rights under the law; therefore, the Fourteenth is limited in its ability to so guarantee those rights.

    Likewise, the Nineteenth Amendment was necessary for similar reasons, although the Fourteenth is a bit more explicit in not applying to women and voting.

    Your conceptual view of the Fourteenth Amendment does not square with its text, history, or jurisprudence, but you lecture the rest of us.

    bridget (55e4a2)

  165. But no, I don’t doubt there are gay judges who could have acted impartially. Walker isn’t one of them. He demonstrated that in myriad ways.

    Name one thing he did because he was gay, i.e., where it is inconceivable that a straight judge would never have done the same thing.

    Kman (5576bf)

  166. 160. Really, you should give a thought before you press ‘submit’.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  167. Clearly, there is nothing different between a marriage between a man and a woman, and a marriage between two men or two women. Nothing.

    JD (b63a52)

  168. Not all relationships were created equal.

    But shouldn’t they be treated equal under the law?

    Should polygamous unions be legal? What about the case of a married couple and a husband who wants to bring his twenty-year-old mistress into the union, rather than divorcing his wife to marry the tart?

    Hey, if all relationships should be treated equally under the law…..

    bridget (55e4a2)

  169. “…If they just meant it for one group (i.e., blacks), it would have said so.”
    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 12:30 pm

    A descent to new depths.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  170. Walker was as impartial to the anti-Prop 8 advocates as I am to bacon.

    Mmmmm, bacon.

    Icy (3317f4)

  171. Walker will get married only (shortly) after Tony Kennedy finds gay marriage to have been enshrined in the Constitution in 1868.

    Until after Tony does so, Walker knows he mustn’t marry. It might look bad.

    Gromit (341ca0)

  172. 169- …more…
    They, the writers of the 14th, did not have to specify Blacks (whatever) since they began the Amendment by saying in Section 1:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
    are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…

    Trying to show everyone how smart you are only demonstrates the severe limits that exist to your intellect!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  173. Bridget:

    Yes the first clause (dealing with Due Process and Equal Protection)) applies to groups (so long as they are citizens) — I’m not disagreeing with you.

    It’s been applied over the years to groups based on race, based on national origin, based on religion, based on gender, etc. And now, based on orientation. To suggest that it was only meant for ONE kind of group simply discounts history, as well as the plain meaning of the text.

    Kman (5576bf)

  174. Not that I can’t be shocked anymore, after the trouble Roe v. Wade has caused and Obamaneycare I’d be surprised if Mr. Roberts opened hisself up to the ‘activism’ kablooey.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  175. Bridget wrote:

    After Lawrence v. Texas, I sort of wonder why anyone cares – you’re not going to be hauled out of your house in handcuffs for your sexual activity, so what’s with the idea that you need a big gold star from the government to feel like your relationship is meaningful? What’s with the idea that a religious or a commitment ceremony is not enough, and that you’re going to feel all ashamed unless Daddy Government gives his blessing and a toast to the groom and groom?

    I will be completely serious here, and it will doubtlessly offend a couple of people I’d rather not offend — aphrael primary among them — but it will be the direct truth: the push for homosexual marriage is to use the approval of the state as an argument that homosexual relationships are just as good and just as normal as heterosexual ones.

    If this were just about inheritance or hospital visitation rights and the like, the various civil unions and domestic partnership laws would be sufficient. They are not sufficient because this is not about the rights of marriage but the name of marriage; without that specific name, homosexual unions of any sort are different, are outside of the preferred and outside of the norm.

    The extremely serious Dana (3e4784)

  176. Should polygamous unions be legal?

    No, and states have a legitimate interest in why they shouldn’t be legal (fraud, tend to be abusive to women, etc).

    But you can’t say the same thing about gay marriages.

    Kman (5576bf)

  177. In one way this post is not about same-sex marriage in the bigger context, this is about the legislative and judicial process with Prop 8. There may be another opportunity to talk about the broader issue later on.

    Yes, judges are expected to act impartial even if they have a personal opinion, but part of good faith in that would be aknowledging the appearance of conflict of interest ahead of time rather than “keeping it secret”. In my theoretical example, “was found” was meant to imply “was found out after the case had been argued and decided”.

    When one tries to hide something if makes you look like you are acting guilty, and if you are acting guilty it means that you think you are guilty. Odds are that if a person thinks they’re guilty and are acting guilty, then they are a duck guilty.

    And that, IMO, is what the emails reveal. They didn’t want people to be reminded that the person who decided the case did not disclose their conflict of interest.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  178. Rational basis is not limited to what is pragmatic — society can also legislate according to moral and esthetic values. It is the exercise of the plenary police power of the democtatically elected government. The citizens of California have the power to find gay marriage as immoral and ugly as disposable grocery bags, McDonald’s Happy Meals, and barber shops open on Mondays.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  179. 177. Also nicely put.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  180. 178. Whoa, are you a lawyer or something?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  181. Why does Kmart conflate sexual preference to things inate and imutable characteristics, like race?

    JD (b63a52)

  182. No, and states have a legitimate interest in why they shouldn’t be legal (fraud, tend to be abusive to women, etc).

    But you can’t say the same thing about gay marriages.

    According to the CDC, gay men have HIV rates that are over forty times those found in the straight population, and men who have sex with men account for some 60% of new AIDS cases despite being approximately 3-4% of the population.

    That is the reason that the Red Cross does not take the blood of men who have slept with men. Yet the “tendency for abuse” in polygamous or polyandrous relationships trumps basic public health considerations?

    bridget (55e4a2)

  183. MD:

    And that, IMO, is what the emails reveal. They didn’t want people to be reminded that the person who decided the case did not disclose their conflict of interest.

    That’s imputing your feelings about the case onto the participants in the email. Olsen and Vaughn probably don’t agree with you that there was a conflict of interest. So they wouldn’t feel “guilty” about anything.

    Why not take Olsen at his word? That Vaughn being there would be a “distraction”. That’s not an admission that there was a conflict of interest. Only an admission that some people will try to make hay out of his appearance by bringing up that conflict-of-interest chestnut.

    (Does that make sense?)

    Kman (5576bf)

  184. JD: it’s not merely sexual preference (we’re not criminalising being gay, or giving people fewer rights because they are gay); it’s the expression of sexual preference. (It’s much like saying that we’re not going to throw you in jail for being a married dude who looks at other women, but your wife will have a right to divorce your butt if you act on those urges.)

    bridget (55e4a2)

  185. Fraud, tend to be abusive to women …

    So, you can generalize about some, but it is wrong to do so about others?

    JD (b63a52)

  186. Comment by The extremely serious Dana (3e4784) — 3/22/2013 @ 1:10 pm

    yes, the issue that is blurred is not whether a SS couple can have legal protection, but the legal imprimatur that homosexuality is “just like” heterosexuality, whether you like it or not (IMO).

    I don’t think close examination of SS marriage being “more OK and normal” than polygamy holds up when closely looked at.
    Why would having two wives, for example, make an increased risk of abuse. Heck, each wife only has to put up with the guy only 1/2 of the time. Things get heated, one walks out and says, “you deal with him”.
    Husband demands wife runs errands and cooks dinner, wife says, “I can’t do two things at once”, husband gets mad cause he wants to watch TV and do neither, no longer a problem.

    You folk who are down on polygamy have no imagination. (No, I am not for polygamy, but a friend once ran through the back door being chased by his wife and he said, “I don’t know what she’s upset about. All I said was that wives are so great that I should have 12 of them”. It was in jest and are both alive and still married today 25 years later.)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  187. Kman confirms my previous, even before I wrote it:

    Not all relationships were created equal.

    But shouldn’t they be treated equal under the law?

    No. There are relationships we do not regard as equal, such as polygamous relationships, unmarried heterosexual unions, roommates, the relationships between people and their pets, and the relationships between adults and underaged children. Society has, every society has had, and always had, preferences on what relationships are acceptable, preferable, tolerable and forbidden. And our Constitution was never intended to overturn the common practice of civilization to have such preferences.

    The extremely serious Dana (3e4784)

  188. JD:

    Why does Kmart conflate sexual preference to things inate and imutable characteristics, like race?

    How old were you, JD, when you decided to become heterosexual?

    Kman (5576bf)

  189. How many other judges go to Supreme Court hearings to see if their rulings will be upheld?

    It seems inappropriate to be there in person, as if to say – tell me to my face that I was wrong.

    Mike S (d3f5fd)

  190. Yes the first clause (dealing with Due Process and Equal Protection)) applies to groups (so long as they are citizens) — I’m not disagreeing with you.

    First, you’re disingenuous; you said earlier that XIV only applies to citizens. Second, you’re inaccurate; the latter part of XIV Section 1 applies to people who are not citizens.

    Dana: that is exactly why my support for SSM has waned over the years. If it were about hospital visitation, inheritance, and such, there would be a strong push for some sort of civil union, perhaps even a type that straight people could enter into as well. The fact that the push is to call it marriage, and, in some circumstances, bring down the arm of the law on Christians who refuse to participate in those weddings, convinces me that this issue is not about gays who love each other and want to set up house without worrying about a 3 am raid.

    bridget (55e4a2)

  191. Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 1:11 pm

    All relationships have the potential of being abusive, which is why we have laws against Domestic Abuse.

    Stupidity such as yours must truly be painful.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  192. Can you imagine how lonely the squirrels would be without Kman to bring attention to them? He does so much for their self-esteem.

    SPQR (85106e)

  193. Wrong answer, Kmart. You claim it is immutable, prove it. Anne Heche says you are a clown.

    JD (b63a52)

  194. Kman, himself, is a bit…biased…on this topic. But… Remember what a stalker he has been? First of poor Aaron, and now Patterico? And keep in mind his M.O.: the dance around definitions, to show just how darned smart he is compared to other people. Which is why he was defending Kimberlin. Remember? It’s speaking Twoof to Powder, as usual.

    I don’t think there is much depth to his beliefs.

    But he sure did put a Mafia style threat on Patterico upthread (“…be a shame if something happened to your nice job…“), and when called on it, claimed not to have done so. Nothing new there.

    Kman loves to dance. He was surely in the Chess Club in high school, and got the whirlies often from the football team. That fits his approach to things here.

    I mean, I loved his commentary that plural marriages tend to abuse women. Percentages? Data? I mean, compared to the number of abuses in “standard” marriages? Fraud? Honestly? Because there has never, ever been fraud in “standard” marriages, nor in gay marriages. Right?

    No, he pulled that comment out of his usual nether regions. Like poor Mr. Feet, he is just…duonormative!

    Fact is, if you think government shouldn’t get involved in the private relationships between adult, consenting people, you can’t pick and choose…and then say you are all about choice and freedom and rights.

    And the funny part, to me, is how these folks think they are all so evolved and tolerant. They sprain their shoulders, patting themselves on the backs. Fact is, they want what they want, and don’t want what they don’t want…based solely on their own prejudices.

    It’s silly.

    Me, I want to see a cage match between Kman and SEK. The verbal Twister would provide enough hot air to solve the energy crisis. Maybe they could be given thesauruses as weapons.

    Simon Jester (2708f4)

  195. Kman, I think my argument is a priori obvious and true. It’s like imputing my feelings on a dog that it wants to bite me just because it is snarling, showing its teeth, and lunging at me.

    And I’m not going to waste my time arguing with you about it.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  196. society can also legislate according to moral and esthetic values. It is the exercise of the plenary police power of the democtatically elected government. The citizens of California have the power to find gay marriage as immoral and ugly as disposable grocery bags, McDonald’s Happy Meals, and barber shops open on Mondays.

    Can the citizens of California find interracial or inter-religious marriage to be as immoral and ugly as disposable grocery bags, McDonald’s Happy Meals, and barber shops open on Mondays?

    The “police power” of the state, even from a democratically elected government, is subordinate to the Constitution. Limited government, y’all. I thought the people on this blog were for it.

    Kman (5576bf)

  197. Throwing another monkey wrench into the works; I live in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, wherein a boy can use the girls’ locker room or bathroom, or be asked to assigned to the girl’s dormitory, or get on a girl’s sports team. Any girl who complains, or has parents who complain on her behalf, can be subject to civil and criminal penalties.

    So, KMart, please explain how Equal Protection does not apply to transgendered (not transsexual) boys who want to play on the girls’ tennis team, use the girls’ locker room, go to Smith, and live with a girl roommate, all the while sporting a penis.

    bridget (55e4a2)

  198. C’mon, bridget. He is just going to stomp his feet and call you intolerant.

    It’s different when he thinks it. He is better than everyone else.

    Simon Jester (2708f4)

  199. Can the citizens of California find interracial or inter-religious

    So now you are equating SSM with religion?

    JD (b63a52)

  200. a cage match between Kman and SEK

    That is a match where after entry into the cage, the door would be welded closed.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  201. Yhe more we engage Kman the more the main point of the topic is ignored. It would be better to discuss March Madness, which is maddening, as my badgers go from defeating a #1 Indiana to losing to Mississippi state within a week.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  202. (Yeah, I’m not getting anything done at work today.)

    If we’re going to legislate based on the potential for abuse, and as innumerable studies show that children are much more likely to be abused by mommy’s boyfriend or their stepfathers than by their biological fathers who live in the house… can we make it illegal for women with minor children to shack up with a guy?

    I mean, if “potential for abuse” is the touchstone, single-mother households should be Ground Zero for laws aimed at improving the lives of children.

    bridget (55e4a2)

  203. Which is why they call it “Madness”!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  204. Comment by bridget (55e4a2) — 3/22/2013 @ 1:28 pm

    I have discussed with P about having a thread on that, but lets talk now about the original post or basketball, shall we?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  205. Limited government, y’all. I thought the people on this blog were for it.

    Does Kmart forget that this whole discussion is a result of Courts throwing out an amendment to the State Constitution passed by the citizens of CA? Apparently Kmart thinks limited govt means Courts deciding what the people must do, against their wishes. Damn Mormons.

    JD (b63a52)

  206. I bet lots of wives wish they had someone else around to deal with their husband after a favorite team loses. No advantage to SSM there.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  207. a cage match between Kman and SEK

    Ms Doubtfire vs Curtis Armstrong is a pillow fight.

    JD (b63a52)

  208. That is the reason that the Red Cross does not take the blood of men who have slept with men. Yet the “tendency for abuse” in polygamous or polyandrous relationships trumps basic public health considerations?

    What?!? How does a married gay couple create a public health threat (when compared to an unmarried gay couple)??

    Kman (5576bf)

  209. Kman,

    I didn’t invite your response. There’s no one here (or likely anywhere else for that matter) who respects your opinion.

    Brian (31a878)

  210. Since it’s important for the government to do things “for the children”, we should all emulate the Romanian regime under the Ceauşescu’s:
    Those State Orphanages were strictly “for the children”, and did so much for society.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  211. Apparently Kmart thinks limited govt means Courts deciding what the people must do, against their wishes.

    Emancipation, desegregation — these are all bad things?

    In this country, we don’t allow majorities to discriminate against minorities when it comes to basic fundamental rights. That was settled long ago.

    Kman (5576bf)

  212. Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 1:35 pm
    married or unmarried makes no difference, still a public health threat where risk is identified with group of association/population model:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-stafford/monogamish-two-is-company_b_2664725.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

    deal with it.

    back to BBall

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  213. SQUIRRELS!!!!!!!!!!!

    JD (b63a52)

  214. JD, which team has squirrels as mascots?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  215. MD in Philly: my point was mostly that if you want to untether Equal Protection from its original meaning, and extend it to gay marriage, then there is precious little stopping you from extending it to transsexuals and transgendered. (It was ten years ago that Margaret Marshall ruled that the MA Constitution’s Equal Protection clause mandates gay marriage; now we’ve gotten to the point wherein girls who complain about a boy in a locker room can be charged with a hate crime. This is not a mere hypothetical extension of the logic; this is the actual continuation of it.)

    KMart: if you can legislate against polygamous unions based on an entirely hypothetical increased likelihood of abuse, why can’t you legislate against gay unions based on entirely real and concrete public health issues? (You are also assuming that gay couples fare just as well as straight couples in terms of marital fidelity, but I seem to remember that various studies show differently in theory and in practise.)

    bridget (55e4a2)

  216. Can the citizens of California find interracial or inter-religious marriage to be as immoral and ugly as disposable grocery bags, McDonald’s Happy Meals, and barber shops open on Mondays?

    The “police power” of the state, even from a democratically elected government, is subordinate to the Constitution. Limited government, y’all. I thought the people on this blog were for it.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 1:26 pm

    Hey, idiot! That’s why it was important for Olson and Walker (but I repeat myself) to find “suspect class”. Race and religion are super-suspect — they are subject to strict scrutiny. Gender (male/female) is intermediate scrutiny. Sexual orientation is still rational basis. What Olson is trying to do, and unlike you he knows what he’s doing, is get sexual orientation the same sucpect class status as gender, which was not gotten in Romer v. Evans or Lawrence v. Texas.

    (Kman insists on being an idiot.)

    nk (c5b7ef)

  217. “There is nothing shocking in Walker wanting to attend the argument.”

    Sam – Wanting to attend and actually attending are two different matters. Have you run across or read about precedents district court judges attending SC arguments on cases on which they ruled or is everybody just pulling stuff out of their butts on this point?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  218. Steve57 #158,

    Maybe you are right about the populations of each state but the legislatures (which is what I was thinking about in my comment) seem to have very different agendas.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  219. Kmart – I don’t buy your attempt to conflate sexual preference with race. I think it is slimy that you do so, and trying to claim the mantle of segregation and slavery is a pretty damn good example of why.

    JD (b63a52)

  220. If we’re going to legislate based on the potential for abuse…

    We’re not. But when talking about polygamy, you are often talking about relationships where the man has inordinate amount of control (financial, physical, psychological and otherwise) over the women (plural). The state has a legitimate interest in stopping that.

    But the greater interest the state has in not recognizing polygamy is the administrative aspect. Who gets the social security benefits when one spouse dies, etc? What about estate benefits, child custody laws, etc.? Administration becomes a nightmare, so the state has a legitimate interest in not recognizing polygamous couples.

    None of that is true with same-sex married couples.

    Kman (5576bf)

  221. Comment by bridget (55e4a2) — 3/22/2013 @ 1:42 pm

    exactly, you are right, later
    back to prop8 or basketball

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  222. Has Vaughn Walker married his partner, out of curiosity?Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/22/2013 @ 9:06 am

    – Would it not be better if he married his partner out of love?

    Icy (3317f4)

  223. In this country, we don’t allow majorities to discriminate against minorities when it comes to basic fundamental rights. That was settled long ago.

    So there’s a fundamental right for the government to put a big gold star on you so that everyone knows how much you loooooove your significant other, and how significantly significant this significant other is?

    Is there a fundamental right for the government to give you tax breaks? to grant legal recognition to various religious ceremonies? The thing that all SSM advocates ignore is that this is an entirely moot point, post-Lawrence. You can have whatever religious ceremony you want, any personal ceremony, screw each other all day long, hold hands in public, make estate plans for your life together, and the government can’t stop you.

    bridget (55e4a2)

  224. Nobody ever has more control over the other in traditional marriage. Or SSM. If that were ever to occur, they should be banned.

    JD (b63a52)

  225. Who gets the social security benefits when one spouse dies, etc? What about estate benefits, child custody laws, etc.? Administration becomes a nightmare,
    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 1:44 pm

    I call that a bogus argument. it would be a gorwth opportunity for litigation and divorce lawyers. heck, the govt had no problem deciding what to do with GM’s assetts. can’t divide an estate 3 ways
    come back with better than that

    better yet, don’t come back at all unless you want to get real

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  226. What Olson is trying to do, and unlike you he knows what he’s doing, is get sexual orientation the same sucpect class status as gender, which was not gotten in Romer v. Evans or Lawrence v. Texas

    Sure. And more. He can get to strict scrutiny by convincing the court that marriage is a fundamental right.

    And he can even win under a lower scrutiny as well. Even rational basis.

    Kman (5576bf)

  227. But the greater interest the state has in not recognizing polygamy is the administrative aspect. Who gets the social security benefits when one spouse dies, etc? What about estate benefits, child custody laws, etc.? Administration becomes a nightmare, so the state has a legitimate interest in not recognizing polygamous couples.

    None of that is true with same-sex married couples.

    Given that no SSM couple on the planet has had a child together (they can adopt, but they cannot produce a child together without the intervention of a third party), I think you just undermined your own argument.

    bridget (55e4a2)

  228. lets take every comment by Kman and every comment to him out of this thread and put it elsewhere. he has succeeded in making this too lengthy for people to bother with

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  229. Because it is irrational to think that a man and a woman is differen than two men. Why do you deny science, Kmart?

    JD (b63a52)

  230. KMart: …why can’t you legislate against gay unions based on entirely real and concrete public health issues? (You are also assuming that gay couples fare just as well as straight couples in terms of marital fidelity, but I seem to remember that various studies show differently in theory and in practise.)

    “Real and concrete” public health issues?

    If you’re worried about AIDs (and you seem to be), then the states ought to be encouraging fidelity among gays, rather than promiscuity, right? Don’t look now, but you’re making an argument FOR gay marriage, not against it.

    Kman (5576bf)

  231. Or we could beg Patterico to make us a new thread about the Walker emails. “Sorry we messed up your first thread! Clean up on Aisle 6!”

    bridget (55e4a2)

  232. If you’re worried about AIDs (and you seem to be), then the states ought to be encouraging fidelity among gays, rather than promiscuity, right?

    Bullshlt. You assume people are unfaithful until marriage.

    JD (b63a52)

  233. So there’s a fundamental right for the government to put a big gold star on you so that everyone knows how much you loooooove your significant other, and how significantly significant this significant other is?

    The government already does that. It just do it for EVERY couple.

    The thing that all SSM advocates ignore is that this is an entirely moot point, post-Lawrence. You can have whatever religious ceremony you want, any personal ceremony, screw each other all day long, hold hands in public, make estate plans for your life together, and the government can’t stop you.

    Kman (5576bf)

  234. The thing that all SSM advocates ignore is that this is an entirely moot point, post-Lawrence. You can have whatever religious ceremony you want, any personal ceremony, screw each other all day long, hold hands in public, make estate plans for your life together, and the government can’t stop you.

    This is true. But as long as the government is in the marriage-recognition business (and I’m sympathetic to those who say it shouldn’t be at all), then it can’t discriminate.

    Kman (5576bf)

  235. The government already does that. It just do it for EVERY couple.

    Provided you redefine what this proverbial “couple” is.

    JD (b63a52)

  236. KMart: No, I’m not, not unless you make a whole flurry of assumptions that are logically improper and factually incorrect.

    Now, I’m sorry if this is TMI, but I’ve been dating my boyfriend for a year and a half and there is a ZERO chance of us giving each other STDs, since we aren’t sleeping together. It’s really amazing, but it appears as if self-control is the reason that we’re not infecting each other, or even have anything to infect each other with. We’re chaste and monogamous – without the government giving us Social Security survivor’s benefits!

    Gay men are more promiscuous than their unmarried heterosexual counterparts. You make the counterfactual assumption that gay men would suddenly change into monogamous, chaste individuals if only the state would give them visitation rights in the hospital.

    My attitude is pretty simple: before you ask to be rewarded for monogamy, demonstrate that you’re capable of it. And as per one of the links above, gay men are statistically less likely than their straight male counterparts to believe that monogamy in marriage is important.

    bridget (55e4a2)

  237. The emails are likely to reinforce the widely held perception among Prop. 8 supporters that Walker was less than impartial in his rulings during the trial.

    Maybe I’m missing something, but how are these emails more significant evidence-wise than his open admission of being in a long-term relationship with a man? I suppose it “reinforces the widely held perception,” but is that a matter of law or just another excuse for opponents of same-sex marriage to complain? I could see this, for example, being a problem if he were still on the bench:

    Walker was so invested in his ruling that he wanted to watch the appellate courts’ argument himself.

    But given that he’s retired, and that he’s proud of having ruled on what he considers a significant piece of civil rights legislation, I’m not sure what the problem is. Unless there’s evidence that he colluded with Olson prior to making his ruling — which I’m sure is what many of your commenters assume, what with all the gays and gay-friendlies knowing each other because they actively conspire to destroy America one traditional marriage at a time — this just seems to me to be weaker evidence about Walker possibly being predisposed to rule as he did than Walker himself provided.

    (And before the chirping birds who’ve made the comments here increasingly unreadable have their say, let me say that I’ll read and respond to what Pat [and anyone civil] has to say in response to this, but will ignore the rest. So have at it, JD et al! Do what you do that brings so much value and insight to this blog!)

    SEK (74bb56)

  238. The government does discriminate in marriage: I can’t marry someone who is underage, related to me by blood (or, in some cases, marriage), already married (destroying my dreams of wedding Paul Ryan), in the process of a divorce or in the nisi period thereafter, or mentally incapable of understanding the marriage contract.

    For all your trash-talking of nk and him not understanding the law, one would think that you would have at least a basic understanding of the laws governing matrimony.

    bridget (55e4a2)

  239. which I’m sure is what many of your commenters assume, what with all the gays and gay-friendlies knowing each other because they actively conspire to destroy America one traditional marriage at a time —

    Typical dishonest crap from the crapweasel. His google alert for himself must have dinged.

    JD (b63a52)

  240. I DEMAND CIVILITY WHILE BEING OBJECTIVELY UNCIVIL MYSELF

    JD (b63a52)

  241. Three cheers for you and for your boyfriend, bridget (serious, not snark).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  242. Rachel Carson wroted a whole book about what happened when the chirping birds went away she called it Silent Spring and this is why bedbugs.

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  243. before you ask to be rewarded for monogamy, demonstrate that you’re capable of it

    First of all, I dispute your stats about gays being more promiscuous than straight people. But that’s beside the point.

    What you are suggesting that the state place a burden on gay couples that it doesn’t place on straight couples, before the marriage is recognized.

    Suppose there are statistics that say that black people are more promiscuous than white people (or the reverse, if that makes you more comfortable). Would you place that same burden on black (or white) people based on their race?

    Kman (5576bf)

  244. and why many, many people around the world have unnecessarily died of malaria

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  245. First of all, I dispute your stats about gays being more promiscuous than straight people. But that’s beside the point

    oh, don’t even start that

    i need to go.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  246. The government does discriminate in marriage: I can’t marry someone who is underage, related to me by blood (or, in some cases, marriage), already married (destroying my dreams of wedding Paul Ryan), in the process of a divorce or in the nisi period thereafter, or mentally incapable of understanding the marriage contract.

    And for each of those, there are legitimate reasons (e.g., minors can be easily taken advantage of, so therefore their consent to marry isn’t “knowing and voluntary”).

    But none of those reasons exist for homosexuals.

    Kman (5576bf)

  247. Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 1:44 pm

    Because the concept of “Butch” doesn’t exist in SS relationships.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  248. Social science studies that do not conform to Teh Narrative are to be discarded. Others provide the basis for finding of fact.

    JD (4bb5d1)

  249. And for each of those, there are legitimate reasons

    And the legitimate reason to discriminate against polygamists is…?

    beer 'n pretzels (6ef50f)

  250. It’s not. It’s 136 pages, with detailed findings of fact and lengthy discussion of the relevant law. You might want to read it (PDF). Disagree with the legal reasoning if you want, but it’s not “nothing”.
    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 10:03 am

    – No. It’s 136 pages of nothing.

    Icy (3317f4)

  251. 220. We’re not. But when talking about polygamy, you are often talking about relationships where the man has inordinate amount of control (financial, physical, psychological and otherwise) over the women (plural). The state has a legitimate interest in stopping that.

    Well then the state can stop that by making sure no one woman is ever alone with such a potential monster. Only polygamous marriages should be legal.

    four women have four times the earning potential. The guy might be able to exert physical dominance over one woman, but not four tag teaming him. Four women pooling their resources can better resist his psychological manipulation, much like prisoners of war in a group can resist their captors psychological manipulation better than one in solitary confinement. “And otherwise.”

    Congrats. You’ve just made the argument that the state has an interest in stopping heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman. Because of the potential for abuse of that poor, lone woman.

    But the greater interest the state has in not recognizing polygamy is the administrative aspect. Who gets the social security benefits when one spouse dies, etc? What about estate benefits, child custody laws, etc.? Administration becomes a nightmare, so the state has a legitimate interest in not recognizing polygamous couples.

    None of that is true with same-sex married couples.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 1:44 pm

    Got that folks? The state never had an interest in marriage before the rise of the administrative state. FDR came up with Social Security and then the feds said to themselves, “Whoa, we gotta start regulating this s***.”

    Why, I bet nobody could find a court case predating the 1930s where the gub’mint ever expressed an interest in the concept of marriage entirely because of the central procreative purpose of marriage. I know Judge Vaughn Walker couldn’t.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  252. I step away, and I see yet more examples of what a silly prat is our Kman. Here is a good example:

    He responded to a comment about abuse and polygamy.

    “We’re not (referring to abuse in polygamous relationships). But when talking about polygamy, you are often talking about relationships where the man has inordinate amount of control (financial, physical, psychological and otherwise) over the women (plural). The state has a legitimate interest in stopping that.”

    Except Kman himself brought up abuse. Here it is:

    “..No, and states have a legitimate interest in why they shouldn’t be legal (fraud, tend to be abusive to women, etc)….”

    I could make a case that single motherhood should be prohibited, on the same bases.

    See? That’s what I mean about him playing Debate Team Twister™. He is like the famous “Ono” bird that flies in every smaller circles, until it flies up its own fundament.

    JD has it best. Kman is a good little soldier, pushing Teh Narrative that to oppose same sex marriage is a civil rights issue, and a right of privacy (and human decency). In this way, people who disagree are RAAACCCIIIISSSSTS.

    And that approach works quite well in our weird society, as we observe daily.

    I also love, love, love the comment that plural marriage would lead to a “nightmare” of administration of inheritance, survivor benefits, visitation, etc.

    Because gay marriage doesn’t do any of that, nor do modern blended families.

    No, the facts are simple. Kman wants gay marriage. That’s it. Full stop. It’s not an issue of civil rights. Or privacy. Or God help us, intellectual consistency.

    And if you oppose him, you are evil.

    Like I said: a silly man.

    Oh, and for clarity? I am not a proponent of polygamy. I have trouble enough in my small family, let alone a complex one. I just detest people being intellectually dishonest for political purposes, and trying to claim a mantle of civil rights and personal freedom…when they only care about their own rights, and no one else’s.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  253. Tell us, Kmart, if the “greater interest of the state in not recognizing polygamy is the administrative state” then why did Congress pass the Morrill anti-bigamy law in 1862. That law was the first federal law intended to suppress polygamy in US territories.

    Like, I dunno, Utah territory for some reason I can’t decipher in this latter day.

    What welfare program were those polygamists planning to cash in on?

    Steve57 (60a887)

  254. … Liberals always stack the deck and reverse engineer “fairness” to meet their agenda…We have Justice Roberts and Kennedy.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Get your guns ready!

    Rodney King's Spirit (951136)

  255. Klassic Kman Krazy:

    “… But as long as the government is in the marriage-recognition business (and I’m sympathetic to those who say it shouldn’t be at all), then it can’t discriminate….”

    Except you have repeatedly deployed amusingly biased comments about polygamists. And it is ironic, because you extend to those relationships none of the “benefit of the doubt” arguments you lend SSM. It’s almost like you are…are…are…prejudiced or something.

    Maybe you would be happier with group marriages of the same gender?

    In any event, you saying that you are sympathetic to those who feel government should not be involved in personal relationships is, um, kind of a clear cut lie.

    Classic.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  256. So gay men are not more likely to sexually assault little boys they adopted but polygamist men are more likely to assault and abuse grown ass women? WTF kind of reasoning is this?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Oh yes! Liberal reasoning.

    Rodney King's Spirit (951136)

  257. And you all have to admit that, predictably, the brilliant intellectual SEK drooled to the metaphorical bell, Pavlov style. And in a fashion that underscored my point.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  258. 252. No, the facts are simple. Kman wants gay marriage. That’s it. Full stop. It’s not an issue of civil rights. Or privacy. Or God help us, intellectual consistency.

    And if you oppose him, you are evil.

    Like I said: a silly man.

    Oh, and for clarity? I am not a proponent of polygamy. I have trouble enough in my small family, let alone a complex one. I just detest people being intellectually dishonest for political purposes, and trying to claim a mantle of civil rights and personal freedom…when they only care about their own rights, and no one else’s.

    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/22/2013 @ 2:21 pm

    He’s doing society a service. The more he argues for gay marriage, the more he exposes the fact there is gay marriage.

    It’s like cotton candy. It looks like there’s something there but then it melts away to nothing.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  259. *the more he exposes the fact there is no argument for gay marriage.*

    (expletive) optical mouse.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  260. Well, we already knew the judge ruled in a way that personally benefited him. It’s common sense to me that this was not proper.

    We also now know that the judge, now retired, is essentially coordinating PR with one side of the case he ruled on.

    Anyone with integrity would say this was not professional behavior for a judge who was plainly biased and should have let another jurist decide the law in this case.

    Dustin (73fead)

  261. I wish you guys wouldn’t let Kman troll the thread. He came here viciously personally attacking Patterico’s integrity at his job, comparing people who just want judicial ethics to truther, etc. He then railed on about gay marriage… even though that is not relevant at all to this post. The author of the post isn’t arguing against gay marriage. He’s arguing against biased judges.

    Kman does this all the time, and the same people lose their cool in response, and there’s very little oxygen left in the room to discuss the topic of the post: that Judge Walker’s behavior is unfair.

    In my opinion, those who don’t have a problem with Walker’s behavior have a serious integrity problem. People without integrity aren’t worth discussing issues with. There’s little way to have a productive conversation with a liar.

    Dustin (73fead)

  262. Dustin, that is an important point, and I watch people bouncing back and forth between naivete and cynicism on the topic.

    I think that a jurist with a vested interest in the topic at hand should recuse her or himself. Now, I have heard (and here) that such judges are professionals, and would never allow their personal feeling to color their decisions. I have also read (here, again), the reverse.

    I’m more Hobbes than Rousseau on this point.

    I mean, the best exercise is to put the shoe on the other foot, metaphorically. Imagine a judge who, as an undergrad, was part of a conservative student club, and wrote a racist parody in the “humor” magazine. Would that judge be allowed to sit on a civil rights case?

    I doubt it.

    But I find that when the judge agrees with the world view of the debater, suddenly the assumption is that the judge would be super fair. Not so much, when the debater and the judge are at odds, philosophically.

    We see this all the time. Left of center “feminists” who insist it is okay to call conservative women vile names. They are still feminists, you see?

    We would not even be having this discussion if a judge had invested in a company that was under insider-trading investigation in a court case. Immediate recusal, and rightly so.

    So I think it is best if a judge with a vested interest step aside.

    But then, I am not a big fan of the power judges have, to be honest.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  263. Kman, so you favor a forty year old man marrying his twelve year old daughter, right, because in your eyes, the government should not prohibit him from doing so ?

    You’re a sicko, Kman.

    Elephant Stone (ecbbbf)

  264. The basketball team from the University of Chief Illiniwek is bringing it.

    elissa (0b96fa)

  265. And Dustin, this isn’t the first time that Kman has danced around threatening people…then denied it. A pox on his house.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  266. Its bizarre to watch Walker’s defenders act as if they have already forgotten just how outrageous Walker’s conduct of that case was.

    Forgotten about his rulings to allow the backers’ of the Proposition to be subject to outrageous discovery, the posturing about cameras in his court and the fact that we now know he specifically delayed his retirement in order to preside over the case. His improper handling of the trial videos themselves?

    All forgotten …

    SPQR (768505)

  267. Judge Vaughn and ethics have nothing in common. If SCOTUS overturns Prop 8, you can bet Vaughn will be one of the first to run to the alter.

    GarandFan (efcf46)

  268. And Dustin, this isn’t the first time that Kman has danced around threatening people…then denied it. A pox on his house.

    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d)

    You’re right, and he disgusts me. I have been drawn into condemning him a few times, and I shouldn’t begrudge others the chance. I just want to read their thoughts on the actual topic. Your 2:49 pm comment is exactly the sort of insightful and interesting comment that I fear Kman takes away from the thread by making so many of them angry and bitter troll fests.

    Now, I have heard (and here) that such judges are professionals, and would never allow their personal feeling to color their decisions.

    Yes, some pretend they are our philosopher kings who have superhuman impartiality on issues of deep personal interest. Interest as powerful as my interest in marrying someone I love, even. I think that’s just absurd. There are exceptional individuals out there, but they are exceptions.

    I am not a big fan of the power judges have, to be honest.

    Now that really gets to the heart of the matter. Why are we having judges decide hotly debated political controversies? Well, one reason is that the voters voted the ‘wrong’ way. This tendency doesn’t always lean left, but I think it usually does because conservative judges will respect limitations on power, while lefties are a willing to let the ends justify the improper means ‘for social justice’.

    The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

    Dustin (73fead)

  269. The basketball team from the University of Chief Illiniwek is bringing it.

    You cursed them.

    JD (b63a52)

  270. Forgotten about his rulings to allow the backers’ of the Proposition to be subject to outrageous discovery,

    I had forgotten that, SPQR.

    Judges should not be immune for unfairness of this kind. It seems like abusing people the judge has a personal beef with. We trust these people with tremendous power over our lives… as Simon says, maybe that’s too much power, but also, that’s why they have to follow some basic rules about when they can fairly use that power. Otherwise, they are little tyrants, which I suspect is how the backers of the proposition feel.

    Dustin (73fead)

  271. Yeah, apparently so. Sorry, JD. WTF?

    elissa (0b96fa)

  272. Dustin, you are well read. I have been looking for a quotation, and I think it is from Jefferson (but I cannot find it). It is along the lines of “The only fair law is one you do not mind in the hands of your bitterest enemy.”

    The hypocrisy I see these days in politics is a nightmare for me.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  273. OT: The DC Story on Menendez seems false. I am so bitterly disappointed!

    Rodney King's Spirit (951136)

  274. #273 DC story on prostitutes, not corruption investigation by FBI.

    Rodney King's Spirit (951136)

  275. SEK #237,

    I don’t think a gay trial judge presents a problem. I think the trial judge wanting to marry his partner — something his ruling as the judge in that case would directly impact — raises at a minimum an appearance of impropriety and possibly an inference of bias. I think these emails reinforce the appearance of impropriety and/or inference of bias.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  276. Following up on #272…

    My hero, Robert Heinlein, wrote a book where a woman and her husband were going to split up. She (the protagonist) told her husband to split their possessions 50-50, as fair as he could make it, and to bring them on separate lists.

    When he presented her with the list, she took his. He gulped and protested.

    She said that she would never allow him to do something he would feel badly about later, and asked him to really make it a 50-50 down the middle split.

    It’s an adult version of “I cut, you choose.” Inherently fair.

    But then, we don’t teach ethics. Nor history (one of my students, 21 years old, had no idea who Mary Jo Kopechne was—but knew all about how Teddy Kennedy was a great hero of the Left).

    This has been the goal of both parties, I think: to create a group of voters who vote with emotion, not reason.

    Off topic, but perhaps not in retrospect.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  277. I am watching the basketball team from the University of Chief Illiniwek. Perhaps that will break the curse.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  278. I am going to hold Elissa personally responsible for this debacle.

    JD (b63a52)

  279. Although Walker did say gays were a suspect class, he went on to say it wasn’t necessary to make them a suspect class since Prop 8 failed even the lower standard under the “rational basis” test (excluding same-sex couples from marriage is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest).
    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 12:33 pm

    – And since WHEN is it a requirement that a voter referendum pass a “legitimate state interest” test?

    Icy (3317f4)

  280. Ye gads. After leading by 14 at the half how can they go like half an hour and make only 2 more pts?

    elissa (0b96fa)

  281. i read this book where like everyone got gay married and nothing bad happened.

    It was like an allegory I think.

    And then all the machines came to life and everyone hid out in a diner cause of there was a scary circus truck.

    But they banded together using their gay marriage powers and made it to the safety of a sailboat and moved to a happy island and everything worked out real good.

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  282. It’s ugly.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  283. The coach needs to call time and make some substitutions.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  284. If anything, it’s the Austin curse. Did they spend some time on 6th Street last night?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  285. It is Elissa’s fault. Cursed them.

    JD (b63a52)

  286. 2.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  287. And it took a 90 or so before the 14th Amendment was applied to blacks.

    Are you nuts?! It was applied to blacks the moment it was ratified. Why do you think it was made in the first place, if not for blacks? As I understand it, Robert Bork believed that since it was passed for the benefit of blacks, and understood at the time to apply to them, it should not apply to anyone else. In what universe did it take 90 years to apply to blacks?!

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  288. Almost 12 minutes without a basket.

    JD (b63a52)

  289. If they hang on, it is because DRJ brought us good karma.

    JD (b63a52)

  290. Maybe I’m missing something, but how are these emails more significant evidence-wise than his open admission of being in a long-term relationship with a man?
    Comment by SEK (74bb56) — 3/22/2013 @ 2:02 pm

    – Openly gay or privately biased, which one is more significant?
    [Perhaps if you had that missing chromosome . . .]

    Icy (3317f4)

  291. And then he attempted to turn it into a literal, televised show trial.

    Well, no he didn’t. He didn’t allow cameras in.

    Um, yes, he did. The Supreme Court sent them away.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  292. Not all relationships were created equal.

    But shouldn’t they be treated equal under the law?

    No, why should they be?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  293. Isn’t it a bit humiliating for Democrats, that the lead attorney seeking a Supreme Court judgment in favor of gay marriage was George W. Bush’s solicitor general, while Bill Clinton’s solicitor general filed an amicus brief arguing the Court has no jurisdiction? OMG, LMAO.

    apetra (559bbc)

  294. No thanks, JD, but I do hope they win.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  295. That court always sweats a lot. They need to wipe it down.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  296. Specifically, it’s really humid in Austin when the weather is on the warm side — as it is today.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  297. Feel better, JD? FWIW please tell them to hydrate and get more sleep this weekend.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  298. Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/22/2013 @ 12:15 pm

    More examples of how Kman is a serial liar.

    As mentioned by Milhouse, the US Supreme court stopped him from turning the trial into a televised show trial.

    SPQR (768505)

  299. Whew. Oskee Wow Wow, JD. Thank you, DRJ. Frankly they did not deserve the win but I’ll take it.

    elissa (0b96fa)

  300. OK ST, KSU, and WIS all out? That surprises me.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  301. Anyone see that Harvard-NM game?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  302. We need a basketball thread, JD.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  303. I will put one up, DRJ. Thanks for the karma.

    JD (b63a52)

  304. Thanks, JD.

    I wonder when the Prop 8 trial judge started his email correspondence with the Gibson Dunn attorney. If it was during the case or prior to issuing his ruling, wouldn’t that be an ex parte contact?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  305. But the original fact, that the person who struck down Prop. 8 had an undisclosed personal interest, I think makes the ruling a travesty (just as it would have been in my alternative scenario above), and anything that would remind people of those facts would want to be hidden as a strategy for those looking for the SCOTUS to uphold the decision.

    He should not have had a personal interest at all, because the outcome of the case at the district court should not have affected any of hisd personal interests in any way. See Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 931 (1975) (noting that “neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances [ like Proposition 8] except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs”)(emphasis added) and Meinhold v. U.S. Department of Defense , 34 F.3d 1469 at 1480 (9th Cir. 1994)(overturning injunction except to the extent it provided plaintiff relief)

    But Judge Walker went beyond his jurisdiction in the injunction, issuing an injunction that enjoins the enforcement of Proposition 8 anywhere with respect to anyone. Plaintiffs admitted as such. See Opposition to Chuck Storey’s Motion to Intervene, at 3. The scope of the injunction made his personal interests relevant.

    Regardless of Vaughn’s own personal situation the fact of the matter is that Olsen presented real legal arguments rationally rather than spouting religious rhetoric and fear.

    the other side presented real legal arguments that were accepted by courts both before and after the ruling. See e.g. Lui v. Holder, No: 2:11-CV-01267-SVW (JCGx)
    (C.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2011)

    We’re not. But when talking about polygamy, you are often talking about relationships where the man has inordinate amount of control (financial, physical, psychological and otherwise) over the women (plural). The state has a legitimate interest in stopping that.

    So why not ban marriage itself?

    But the greater interest the state has in not recognizing polygamy is the administrative aspect. Who gets the social security benefits when one spouse dies, etc? What about estate benefits, child custody laws, etc.? Administration becomes a nightmare, so the state has a legitimate interest in not recognizing polygamous couples.

    Marriage is about “special status”, not a “bundle of rights” See Complaint in Jackson v. Abercrombie, CV11-009734-ACK-KSC, at 13, quoting Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 315 at 289, 957 A.2d 407 at 416 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2008)

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  306. If SCOTUS flips it
    Walker will be among teh
    First to be mincing

    Colonel Haiku (653d21)

  307. My wife packed my bags and said “GET OUT!!!”. As I walked out the front door, she screamed, “I wish you a slow and painful death, you bastard!”

    “Oh,” I replied, “so now you want me to stay?”

    Colonel Haiku (b7fda5)

  308. I woke up this morning at 8, and could tell something was wrong. I got downstairs and found the wife face down on the kitchen floor, not breathing!

    I panicked… I didn’t know what to do. Then I remembered… McDonald’s serves breakfast until 11:30!

    Colonel Haiku (b7fda5)

  309. Anyone see that Harvard-NM game?

    Comment by DRJ

    No, but did the New Mexican womens appear in public without shaving first? It’s agin the law in New Mexico.

    Colonel Haiku (b7fda5)

  310. Teh colonel accidentally swallowed some Scrabble tiles and his next bowel movement could spell disaster.

    Colonel Haiku (b7fda5)

  311. 305.

    We’re not. But when talking about polygamy, you are often talking about relationships where the man has inordinate amount of control (financial, physical, psychological and otherwise) over the women (plural). The state has a legitimate interest in stopping that.

    So why not ban marriage itself?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 3/22/2013 @ 4:16 pm

    He didn’t provide an argument to ban marriage. Just an argument that only polygamous heterosexual marriages should be legal. So the poor dears of the weaker sex can combine their strength against the male brute who would otherwise enslave and torment them.

    Marriage+Kmart=Strength Through Numbers.

    As for the rest, I’m still waiting to hear from Kmart why Congress passed a law against polygamy in the territories in 1862 if the primary interest of the administrative state is who gets the social security check which didn’t exist before 1935.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  312. Quite a herd of stampeding Squirrels!, that have traipsed through here.

    narciso (3fec35)

  313. I’m all for consenting adults entering into contracts with each other, but I’m pretty disgusted by this judge. He’s just set his movement back at least a few years. Hope he’s happy with that.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  314. a corrupt & biased federal judge.

    what a surprise…

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  315. Comment by Colonel Haiku (b7fda5) — 3/22/2013 @ 4:33 pm

    My ex-wife says she still misses me. I’m not surprised. She never could shoot worth a shuck.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  316. Despite their subsequent wild claims, the anti-gays knew long before the trial with Judge Walker all about his sexual orientation as well as about his long-term partner, because the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times asked the anti-gays long before the trial if they knew that, and if they wanted to comment. Anyone who wants to read the LA Times article can go look it up, anyone can get one article.

    All of Judge Walker’s coworkers knew about Walker and his relationship, Walker always brought his partner to social events.

    Anti-gays can make all sorts of vicious personal attacks on the Judge, and hope their many lies about him stick. Anti-gays will fail again.

    CarrotCakeMan (0afb4b)

  317. Proposition 8 added the same-sex marriage ban to the CA constitution. What Judge Walker did was unconstitutional. No judge, whether federal, state, or municipal, can alter or amend any constitution, whether state or federal. If the libtards wanted to remove Prop 8, they are required to use the same process that was used to put the amendment into the constitution in the first place. The amendment procedure does NOT include judicial review.

    If a judge can alter or amend any constitution through judicial review, then he can declare the section of the constitution that limits his power to be unconstitutional. Progtards have no problem with that. Intelligent people find judges changing a constitution by writ or fiat to be repugnant to freedom and liberty.

    Stranded inSonoma (205010)

  318. 317. Anti-gays will fail again.

    Comment by CarrotCakeMan (0afb4b) — 3/22/2013 @ 5:41 pm

    Not as spectacularly as you.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  319. Calling people anti-gay or hohophobic because they disagree with you about social policy is ridiculous.

    JD (b63a52)

  320. Hush, JD, and let CakeMan finish playing Hide the Carrot.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  321. carrotcakeman–do you think your comment about what was previously known about the judge’s personal life and your pissy histrionics and “anti-gay” accusations have anything at all to do with the subject matter of this thread –which is the recent email correspondence between the judge and one set of the prop8 attorneys? Did you even read the thread? Just asking.

    elissa (0b96fa)

  322. Hey, nk… my wife’s back on the warpath again. Last night she said she wanted to make a sex movie, and all I did was suggest we should hold auditions for her part.

    Colonel Haiku (b7fda5)

  323. gay marriage is a mighty cultural juggernaut not unlike touchscreens and netflix and chinese economic dominance

    it’s something like a phenomenon really

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  324. Mr. Feets, you forgot to mention Sony Betamax and the Blackberry.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  325. sure sure

    gay marriage could fizzle out like a meteor or a south korean youtube sensation

    but if I were a betting pikachu I’d put my monies on gay marriage for a thousand Alex

    I really would

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  326. When I was still married …

    I texted my wife, “I love you”. She texted back, “Are you drinking again”?

    My wife texted me, “I love you”. I figured if she could text she was ok but I wondered if the car was still driveable.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  327. The ‘married and in love’ jokes are your best schtick Col. Seriously, it hurts when I laugh, the wife saw to it.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  328. 326. sure sure

    gay marriage could fizzle out like a meteor or a south korean youtube sensation

    but if I were a betting pikachu I’d put my monies on gay marriage for a thousand Alex

    I really would

    Comment by happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/22/2013 @ 6:16 pm

    gay marriage is kinda like Piers Morgan. The networks think it’s a big deal.

    “Ooh, look, we got gay marriage Piers Morgan!”

    Everybody else is like, “What the f*** is gay marriage a Piers Morgan? Dude, I need a job. I don’t have time to worry about gay marriage Piers Morgan.”

    Steve57 (60a887)

  329. Kman destroys his own position:

    We’re not. But when talking about polygamy, you are often talking about relationships where the man has inordinate amount of control (financial, physical, psychological and otherwise) over the women (plural). The state has a legitimate interest in stopping that.

    But the greater interest the state has in not recognizing polygamy is the administrative aspect. Who gets the social security benefits when one spouse dies, etc? What about estate benefits, child custody laws, etc.? Administration becomes a nightmare, so the state has a legitimate interest in not recognizing polygamous couples.

    Yet, well above he wrote:

    Not all relationships were created equal.

    But shouldn’t they be treated equal under the law?

    Which one is it? You cannot state that “all relationships” should be treated equal under the law,” and concomitantly state that some relationships should not be treated equally under the law because some have a greater potential for abuse.

    Heck, you even stated that the greater interest of the state has nothing to do with the relationship itself, but the administrative aspect of it! It’s a fairly odd position to state that all relationships should be treated equally, and then say that some shouldn’t be, because the paperwork is messy.

    The Dana who noticed (af9ec3)

  330. I am watching the basketball team from the University of Chief Illiniwek. Perhaps that will break the curse.
    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/22/2013 @ 3:17 pm

    Didn’t help Wisconsin much, now did it? :-(

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  331. Ted Olson’s wife was killed on 911. You CANNOT criticize him.

    Gus (694db4)

  332. that was like a hundred years ago

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  333. Yah, I spotted that too, Dana, and all I am is some simple car electrician who’s only legal training was Ohm’s Law.

    Anti-gays can make all sorts of vicious personal attacks on the Judge, and hope their many lies about him stick. Anti-gays will fail again.

    Comment by CarrotCakeMan (0afb4b) — 3/22/2013 @ 5:41 pm

    OK dude, I’ll bite- just who here is “anti-gay”? I’ve read some back-and-forth over Prop 8, some questioning about the Judge’s motives, and there has been some mild flaming here and there, but nobody has said anything that could be an indefensible insult or an untenable bias. I think I’m being pretty liberal when I say this: you can have the domestic partnerships, the rights that have already accrued you under California state law, the recognition of your status. Hear me carefully though: you do not get to redefine a central tenet of modern Western Civilization because of some progressive notion of empowerment. Marriage between a man and a woman is a social contract in which the state has a vested interest.
    You may not like that, you can quote all the anti-heterosexual marriage numbers you want, but there it is.

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  334. And to add to that Dana, a big government bureaucracy loving left wing kook such as Kman should embrace messy administrative paperwork for government employees—after all, it means more government bureaucrats will need to be hired.

    Besides, after passionately supporting the fifty thousand page ObamaCare bill and all of its regulations and consequences, I don’t think any liberal worth his salt should be whining about “messy paperwork” as a reason for not passing a law.

    But then again, Kman is not worth his salt.

    Elephant Stone (baa285)

  335. Hey, gary… I spent a couple of hours defrosting the fridge last night… or “foreplay” as she likes to call it.

    Colonel Haiku (ddd129)

  336. Your opinions are indefensible, tell us where you live, carrotcakeman… so we can place you on a map and harass your employer. It’s only fair.

    Colonel Haiku (ddd129)

  337. The other night, my wife asked me how many women I’d slept with. I told her, “Only you. All the others kept me awake all night!”

    Colonel Haiku (ddd129)

  338. you are wrong Mr. H wrongedy wrongedy wrong

    even if you can say that same sex marriage redefines marriage in any meaningful sense, which is debatable, it’s by far a less-radical redefinition than what “no-fault divorce” has wrought upon the institution

    and yes not letting gays get married is anti-gay and not a little bigoted

    you can’t be having these mischievous referenda where you coax a majority into circumscribing the rights of a wee tiny minority and expect people not to notice that what we have here is a fundamentally anti-american exercise

    the tyranny of the majority is something as americans we are conditioned to find distasteful

    and boy do I!

    you can pretend it’s not bigotry and that’s fine but it is bigotry and bigotry is a sin but people what are sensitive to bigotry would commit the far greater sin to let it pass unremarked I think

    plus you also seem to be forgetting that same sex marriage is a real thing

    it’s out there in the world

    right here in our little country!

    gays are a-marrying willy nilly in an increasingly greater number of states

    it’s like how back when taco bell started it was only in one state but then it was in another state and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and then another and also in the district of columbia!

    Gay marriage is a lot like those tacos Mr. H, if you think about it. And everyone loves tacos!

    Cause they’re crunchy and tasty is why.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  339. “Mr. Feets, you forgot to mention Sony Betamax and the Blackberry.”

    Eight track tapes and Beanie Babies as well. I gots lots of cultural juggernaut phenomena I could let you take off my hands cheap, family discount pricing even.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  340. I sure hope Olsen knows what he is doing.After all is on the wrong side here.If this is the way he wants to go then he sooooooo deserved losing his Barbara on 911.

    That was disgusting. Truly. Stay away.

    JD (b63a52)

  341. Pet rocks and Obama chia pets.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  342. and yes not letting gays get married is anti-gay and not a little bigoted

    BS

    JD (4bb5d1)

  343. Bracelets what remind you of JD’s advice here – WWJD.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  344. this is an agree to disagree thing Mr. JD

    I can’t see it any other way

    the key thing is that when gay people get married it doesn’t hurt nobody or redefine anyone else’s marriage

    and they all float on alright

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  345. say if i saw a gay married newlywed couple and they were walking around rural pennsyltucky looking for antiques and I’m watching them while I eat my tacos

    then all of a sudden this big pennsyltucky guy shows up in overalls and starts yelling at them and brandishing his trusty firearm and he’s saying hey you gay people you can’t be here redefining marriage like that it ain’t right

    and the couple is like beg your pardon? We’re not redefining anything mostly we’re just looking for furniture to help tie our furniture together – you see we both basically have the same tastes and we don’t want to throw anything away but our stuff doesn’t *quite* gel you know what I mean

    and the pennsyltucky guy says oh. Ok. Hey this store down here has some wonderful accent pieces follow me.

    And I finish my tacos as I watch them walk down the street together and I think to myself goddamn I love America.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  346. who gives a fuck?
    I’d like to charge u but im pretty stupid in these things
    Im probably worth alot but boy howdy if russians kidnapped me for the sex trade they;d probaly throw me back in the water but ha ha they ain’t got a port! well one vladivastock i think and as young ears can see im just a chatty cathy and i will probably never shut up and who wants a talky sex recipient? not you! of course/ thats why i love you long time….where you going….call me?

    twinkle twinkle (2648f1)

  347. Mr. Feet? I could write exactly the same story about plural marriage folk, except you are a bigot where they are concerned.

    I use that word intentionally because you are trying to push the quite silly idea that people who oppose your preferences are bigoted. And I say that because what motivates you, supposedly, is a respect for privacy and consistency.

    Fact is, you just want to be stylish. And you are letting the President’s people define what is stylish. Why, he was opposed to SSM not so long ago. What changed?

    Trying to be one of the cool kids? No, they could care less about that; it’s all political power.

    Principles are better. If you think privacy is best, then go all in. Otherwise, buy some pom-poms. And cheer the supposedly cool kids.

    Simon Jester (5a438f)

  348. future happyfeet says
    lawday,lawdy it’s hot in here
    be a good boy/shush

    twinkle twinkle (2648f1)

  349. except you are a bigot where they are concerned

    yes I am flawed and judgey about weirdo plural marriages

    I’m working on it

    but in the meantime if gay people wanna get married I will stand with them ones

    cause it’s all about the children

    you don’t treat your gay children different and tell them nonono homo child you can’t get married that’s only for our other kids you’re different and you don’t get to get married why cause you’re a homo so deal with it and get out of my face

    nonono you don’t treat your kids like that

    take god for instance – god treats his children all the same cause he loves his children more than midget pickles

    so I’m a just gonna follow his example thank you very much Mr. Jester

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  350. I don’t think God treats all His children the same, happyfeet, but I think He loves them all the same.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  351. 347. say if i saw a gay married newlywed couple and they were walking around rural pennsyltucky looking for antiques and I’m watching them while I eat my tacos

    then all of a sudden this big pennsyltucky guy shows up in overalls and starts yelling at them and brandishing his trusty firearm and he’s saying hey you gay people you can’t be here redefining marriage like that it ain’t right

    and the couple is like beg your pardon? We’re not redefining anything mostly we’re just looking for furniture to help tie our furniture together – you see we both basically have the same tastes and we don’t want to throw anything away but our stuff doesn’t *quite* gel you know what I mean

    and the pennsyltucky guy says oh. Ok. Hey this store down here has some wonderful accent pieces follow me.

    And I finish my tacos as I watch them walk down the street together and I think to myself goddamn I love America.

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/22/2013 @ 8:22 pm

    Here’s a thought. You imagine gay marriage is legal in pannsyltucky.

    The rest of us get to not vote for it.

    Everyone’s happy.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  352. sometimes god slips his favorite ones a little extra cash when the other kids aren’t looking

    but for the most part he really does try to play it straight down the middle I think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  353. I’m starting to think you actually are a bigot. The schtick you think is so precious grates. I’m tired from grading papers; apologies.

    My guess you were in the Chess Club, complete with a clip on tie, but wanted to be cool. And constructed a whole image out of acting weird and free and iconclastic. Because that was some type of cool.

    Except it isn’t.

    Look, all I am saying is that if you are “all in” for privacy, you don’t get to pick and choose. The real measure of someone’s respect for freedom is to allow people to do things you don’t approve of—because that freedom is right.

    You sound like a rah-rah follower, surfing along the pages of Entertainment Magazine. Which is rather funny, because you clearly consider yourself a unique voice.

    Back to work. Sheesh.

    Simon Jester (5a438f)

  354. thank you Mr. Bob Loblaw

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  355. Im frankly amazed that Paul Mcartney could write a good song like ” Maybe I’m Amazed” about some rich gits no talent hack daughter who could barely hold a tambourine and after extensive coaching by one of our generations greatest songwriters could barely stab a few piano chords. Amazing!

    twinkle twinkle (2648f1)

  356. Children should be seen and not heard
    Beatles should be stabbed or shot

    twinkle twinkle (2648f1)

  357. 351. you don’t treat your gay children different and tell them nonono homo child you can’t get married that’s only for our other kids you’re different and you don’t get to get married why cause you’re a homo so deal with it and get out of my face

    nonono you don’t treat your kids like that

    take god for instance – god treats his children all the same cause he loves his children more than midget pickles

    so I’m a just gonna follow his example thank you very much Mr. Jester

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/22/2013 @ 8:34 pm

    You’re alway good for a laugh, Mr. Feets. I’d treat my kids different in a heartbeat. But then, I’d just be following the Lord’s example. Corinthians 6:9-11:

    Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

    You’d be more believable, Mr. Feets, if you got your talking points about God someplace else then the National LGBT Bar association website.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  358. then all of a sudden this big pennsyltucky guy shows up in overalls and starts yelling at them and brandishing his trusty firearm and he’s saying hey you gay people you can’t be here redefining marriage like that it ain’t right

    Isn’t stereotyping pro-hetero marriage people just as bad as stereotyping gays?

    If not, why not?

    Fairness, justice, blah…blah…

    Dana (292dcf)

  359. Isn’t stereotyping pro-hetero marriage people just as bad as stereotyping gays?

    did you read all the way to the end of my parable Dana?

    I don’t think you did and if you did I don’t think you understood it

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  360. I’m curious, Mr. Feets. Is it part of your small government vision to send the cops after me if I leave an inheritance to my kids who got married and had grandkids but none to the kids who decided life was all about same-sex self indulgence?

    Not like I’ve been confronted with the problem. But if I were I’d say, “You’re still my kid and I still love you. But the whole inheritance thing is so I can provide for your kids. Not for you because like all my kids I expect you to support yourself. Since you’re not having no kids, it’s going to the others. It’s not there so you can have cash on hand for some pool boy who catches your eye in Haiti.”

    In pannsyltucky are the cops showing up at my door, Mr. Feets O’limited government?

    Steve57 (60a887)

  361. justified Mr. 57!

    justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!

    Jesus died, and a rather gruesome death it was, for so adulterers and fornicators and idolaters and thieves could be justified!

    So let’s just leave the justifyings up to Jesus, shall we?

    Yes we shall.

    Meanwhile if some gay people get married I’d say they’re way ahead of the game – it’s those damn revilers we have to keep an eye on!

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  362. Is it part of your small government vision to send the cops after me if I leave an inheritance to my kids who got married and had grandkids but none to the kids who decided life was all about same-sex self indulgence?

    nope have it your way I could care less about what you leave your kids that’s your business

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  363. Yes, I read the whole thing, happyfeet. It was a nice parable – in spite of your stereotyping (big pennsyltucky guy,overalls, brandishing his trusty firearm…)

    I can hear bitter clingers and all their accoutrement ringing in the background.

    Dana (292dcf)

  364. Forget it Steve, it’s Pico or what not, he sees nothing wrong with Walker’s malfeasance, because it doesn’t affect, now if it infringes on his favorite foozle, well look out, but by then you know the drill,

    narciso (3fec35)

  365. 363. justified Mr. 57!

    justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!

    Jesus died, and a rather gruesome death it was, for so adulterers and fornicators and idolaters and thieves could be justified!

    So let’s just leave the justifyings up to Jesus, shall we?

    Yes we shall.

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/22/2013 @ 9:08 pm

    Point of order, Mr. Feets. He died so their sins would be forgiven. Not so they’d be justified. Huge difference.

    Look it up if you don’t believe me.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  366. ‘scuse me. So our sins would be forgiven.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  367. Gay baby DNA
    is a Ramones song

    twinkle twinkle (2648f1)

  368. pikachu strikes me as an Austin Texan, like that unrecognized genius, Ethan Hawke,

    narciso (3fec35)

  369. i might could live in austin again someday

    it has certain tax advantages

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  370. Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/22/2013 @ 8:05 pm

    I still don’t see where the right exists. I’ve not overlooked at all where same-sex couples have sex. For a couple, it’s sort of baked in the cake.

    In states where gay marriage is tenuously legal (better bet that a majority in those states don’t care for it at all), I have nothing to say- 10th Amendment and all that. However, here in California I DO have something to say about it. I said no- I supported Prop 8. To insinuate I’m some sort of knuckle-dragging neanderthal who is anti-gay because of that just points to the fact you have no argument.

    And Taco Bell?? Really. I don’t know what part of the country you hail from, but Taco Bell here is considered pretty much the nadir of Mexican food. You seriously need to get into some carnitas, or al pastor, pollo asada. Save Taco Bell for the late night “I need some food” cravings.

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  371. justified Mr. 57!

    justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!

    Jesus died, and a rather gruesome death it was, for so adulterers and fornicators and idolaters and thieves could be justified!

    So let’s just leave the justifyings up to Jesus, shall we?

    Yes we shall.

    Meanwhile if some gay people get married I’d say they’re way ahead of the game – it’s those damn revilers we have to keep an eye on!

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/22/2013 @ 9:08 pm

    Dead wrong, Happyfeet. It was forgiveness of sin, not justification. Two entirely different concepts.

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  372. Del Taco is the nadir I think

    it’s all about the ebt cards

    and yes maybe I don’t have a super fancy argument but nevertheless I state my case as eloquently as I know how

    and with some urgency

    cause I think it’s bad for america that Team R gets hung up on lost cause stuff like gay marriage when it was supposed be the party what stood foursquare against fascism

    but no it wants to squacker on and on about the sacred definition of marriage blah blah blah

    meanwhile the fascists have cornered america in the bar – backed her right up top the pinball machine!

    and I’m like hey everybody help me help me we have to save america

    but nobody is listening

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  373. 366. Forget it Steve, it’s Pico or what not, he sees nothing wrong with Walker’s malfeasance, because it doesn’t affect, now if it infringes on his favorite foozle, well look out, but by then you know the drill,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/22/2013 @ 9:12 pm

    Yeah, I know the drill. But right now I’ve got nothing better to do than try to use some Brasso to take some of the neglect of the newest addition to my modest collection of sabers and cutlasses, in this case a 1907 Puerto Seguro Spanish Cavalry Trooper’s Saber. And every once in a while mix it up.

    But once I get enough of at least 80 years of damage from kids using it to roast marshmallows over an open fire off of it to justify calling it a night, I’ll forget about. Pop in a movie and light cheap cigar.

    Maybe “The Devil’s Brigade,” so I can watch William Holden and friends win WWII all over again.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  374. nobody ever wants to compare and contrast the redefinitional qualities of no-fault divorce vs. gay marriage

    why is that you think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  375. Cuz you’d get no argument. No fault divorce wasn’t a good thing, either.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  376. but was it more redefinitiony than gay marriage?

    less redefinitiony?

    or about the same?

    and why?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  377. The definition and meaning of marriage has been getting mangled for a long time. But SSM is to marriage as the scissors in Dr. Gosnell’s hands were to baby’s spines.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  378. Mr. Feets @378, because nothing ever severed the relationship between responsible procreation and marriage like SSM. Like Dr. Gosnell’s scissors, SSM completely and permanently says one thing has nothing to do with the other.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  379. yeesh with the baby spines

    how does no-fault divorce NOT sever the relationship between responsible procreation and marriage

    and for a far far far greater number of marriages than SSM could affect in a thousand years

    with respect to procreations, SSM only affects a minority of the marriages of those members of a wee small minority who do in fact choose to marry

    it’s statistically insignificant

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  380. how does no-fault divorce NOT sever the relationship between responsible procreation and marriage

    No fault divorce damages the relationship a great deal. You’ll get no argument from me. But it doesn’t sever the relationship.

    What do you expect from me? I’m pretty effin’ old now according to what my knees are telling me, but I wasn’t born in time to stop the no fault divorce fad. So, now, I’m supposed to hop on the gay wedding bandwagon when I think no fault divorce was a huge blunder?

    with respect to procreations, SSM only affects a minority of the marriages of those members of a wee small minority who do in fact choose to marry

    That’s the problem, isn’t it. Those who choose to not to get married. We all end up paying for it, “Life of Julia” style.

    How do you tell those who marriage would help most that marriage and having kids go to together when you’re passing laws that say marriage and having kids have nothing to do with each other?

    Steve57 (60a887)

  381. “nobody ever wants to compare and contrast the redefinitional qualities of no-fault divorce vs. gay marriage”

    Mr. Feets – Well, you sort of need one of those siren warning thingers like when a truck backs up when you introduce a new strawman or move the goal posts like that in a thread is what I think, but nobody tells me nothing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  382. Scot’s hateful comment is gone.

    Patterico (3a7928)

  383. all I mean to say is Mr. 57

    is that marriage was defined around an axis of romantic love by the advent and eventual universality of no-fault divorce

    that battle has been lost

    that battle has been lost for many many moons

    with respect to the latter part of your comment I think we are miscommunicating

    what I mean to say is that gays are a wee small minority

    of them, only a fraction will marry

    of those, only a fraction will seek to have kids

    even if you problematize it, it’s simply not a problem on a scale which could have any ramifications for society at large

    and as far as sending a message to “those who marriage would help most” goes, the decision to have kids is even moreso a largely economic decision for them ones than it is among those for whom maybe marriage isn’t quite as potentially helpful as it is to others

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  384. hate can’t be pruned you have to cut out the roots Mr. P

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  385. Mr. Feets – Nobody ever wants to talk about homosexuality and evolution and how if gays don’t reproduce homosexuality would evolve out of existence if it wasn’t a choice or something.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  386. Nobody ever wants to talk about homosexuality and evolution and how if gays don’t reproduce homosexuality would evolve out of existence if it wasn’t a choice or something cause it’s a very 1986 700 Club type conversation to have I think.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  387. There’re big tent politics people and small tent politics people. A big tent potentially holds lots more voters than a small tent so I’m kind of simpatico with big tents.

    elissa (0b96fa)

  388. Mr. Feets – No, I only raise it in the same spirit you raise no fault divorce, stuff that nobody want to talk about. I keep reading about people potentially discovering a gay gene today, not 1986, but mostly it seems like sasquatch so far so no it is not some crazy religious question but a for reals science one what liberals should appreciate.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  389. tents are kind of an anachronism in a lot of ways

    especially your bigger ones

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  390. Mr. daley gay genes are only of any use really to the chinese I think

    americans are too cowardly and simple to have any real fun at all with genetic engineering

    we don’t even irradiate our diseased foozles

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  391. Are you just saying that because you don’t want Megan’s daddy in your tent, Mr. Feets?

    elissa (0b96fa)

  392. you forgot she takes an h

    um

    I left the tent all by myself Elissa

    a tentless pikachu am I

    but yeah there’s no tent big enough for me and MCD both

    not even at Cabela’s

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  393. Mr. Feets – gaydar helped us win WWII. I saw it on the History Channel.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  394. Mr. Feets – Don’t be a science denier and an anti-religion bigot. They don’t make tents that shape.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  395. gaydar helped us win WWII stylishly and with no small amount of insouciance Mr. daley

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  396. 384. all I mean to say is Mr. 57

    is that marriage was defined around an axis of romantic love by the advent and eventual universality of no-fault divorce

    that battle has been lost

    that battle has been lost for many many moons

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/22/2013 @ 10:30 pm

    I don’t believe any battle is really lost until you give up. That’s why, to pick one example, there’s a Second Battle of Bull Run.

    But still it’s good you brought up the issue of no-fault divorce. For this reason.

    If I agree that no fault divorce was a bad idea because it harms the institution of marriage, do I hate gays?

    And if I am not a homophobe for opposing no-fault divorce (although I can’t recall anyone ever asking me, but if they had I would have) because I thought it would harm the institution of marriage, why all of a sudden am I a h8r for opposing gay marriage for the exact same reasons I agree no-fault divorce was a disaster?

    Steve57 (60a887)

  397. If it wasn’t for the egregious way that Judge Walker handled the prop 8 case and his illegal use of videos taken of the case I would say no big deal. If I were a retired judge and a landmark case I decided went to SCOTUS I’d be curious.

    However, in light of how the case was handled and the video problem it looks more and more like improper bias.

    Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96)

  398. Simon Jester must have gotten swirlied by the Chess Club guys and gals.

    It’s the only explanation.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  399. you don’t treat your gay children different and tell them nonono homo child you can’t get married that’s only for our other kids

    And, happyfeet, you don’t tell your son who grows up to be, say, 5’3″ tall that, unlike his 7’3″ brother, he can’t become a professional NBA player. You don’t tell your daughter that, in her desire to emulate her brothers, she can’t be a Boy Scout. You don’t tell your adult offspring with Downs Syndrome that, as is the case with his gifted sister who boasts high SAT scores, he can’t be accepted at Harvard.

    Mark (0a8706)

  400. Can anyone tell me how the California Supreme Court got a right to same sex marriage out of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution when there were anti-sodomy laws on and left on as law when and after equal protection was added to the California Constitution?

    If the equal protection clause gave a right to SSM why weren’t the anti-sodomy laws immediately revoked?

    Judge Walker is a partisan hack, the way he handled the case, the illegal use of the courtroom videos, and now the email messages prove it. Since when is case law not proof enough? If you have history and case law behind you there is no need for expert witnesses. The history and case law stand alone and above an expert witness.

    Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96)

  401. 371. The squirt and I ate at Taco Bell in Fargo in the past year cause it was next to the Hotel and we’d no car.

    Disgusting, awful, we will not be back.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  402. 336, 338. LOL, but not too loud, everyone is asleep. We’re infested with cats.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  403. Prof. Jacobson notes his interest in the post.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/03/judge-walkers-interest/#more

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  404. Ace’s more interesting interest:

    http://minx.cc/?post=338564

    Ace is on his game lately, the Prof., definitely off.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  405. I’m not one bit surprised at this. Vaughn Walker already showed how much he was willing to corrupt the federal court system to achieve his aims, having broken so many rules during the litigation, causing the Supreme Court to step in twice to stop his hijinks. This is not only disturbing, it is depressing and makes me ashamed to think It confirms just how corrupt the gay marriage litigation game is, and it makes me ashamed of the Next, let’s see if and how “Judge” Vaughn Walker communicated with Boies and Olson when he was on the bench.

    PCast (91f607)

  406. the cantina bowl at the taco bell is a Healthy and Flavourful choice

    the cantina burrito is too carby though

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  407. This whole Prop 8 case and how it was handled by Judge Vaughn Walker literally makes me sick to my stomach. Walker soiled the legal system. No wonder he grabbed his retirement pension before stuff started getting disclosed.

    Wendy (91f607)

  408. 402. 371. The squirt and I ate at Taco Bell in Fargo in the past year cause it was next to the Hotel and we’d no car.

    Disgusting, awful, we will not be back.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/23/2013 @ 2:54 am

    Fargo as in North Dakota? Dude, you were eating Can-Mex.

    Taco Bell’s OK, I guess. If you’re in Kali or Kalorado and you’ve smoked the last of your medical marijuana and the only place within walking distance is the drive through at Taco Bell.

    Taco Bell’s relationship to actual Mexican food is a different thing. I’m reminded of a place I discovered back in the 1980s in Salzburg, Austria. Me and my friends were a little tired of nothing but German food and we came across this Mexican place.

    Turns out somebody had only seen pictures of Mexican food and decided to open a restaurant on that basis. It was awful; it kinda sorta looked like Mexican food but no. But it was doing well. All the cosmopolitan Austrians were convinced it was the sophisticated place to be.

    A Taco Bell could have made a killing. It ain’t Mexican food. And disgusting and awful can do good business.

    Maybe I’ll open an Italian place in Fargo to compete with that Taco Bell. Squirt a little ketchup in that Mac & Cheese mix and call it marinara sauce.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  409. If it’s legal and ethical, then this is a big pile o’nuthin’.

    Wisco (801e72)

  410. Which one is it? You cannot state that “all relationships” should be treated equal under the law,” and concomitantly state that some relationships should not be treated equally under the law because some have a greater potential for abuse.

    By his logic, gay relationships could be banned merely because of a belief that they are more prone to abuse.

    He does not think his positions through.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  411. If it’s legal and ethical, then this is a big pile o’nuthin’.
    Comment by Wisco (801e72) — 3/23/2013 @ 9:19 am

    – You think it’s ethical, do you?

    Icy (d77659)

  412. A Taco Bell could have made a killing. It ain’t Mexican food. And disgusting and awful can do good business.

    It’s Wrecked ‘Em beating Chalupa by a nose… theotherwhitemeat finishes out of da money!

    Colonel Haiku (c3b130)

  413. went to county fair
    bought teh wife hamster fur coat
    ferris wheel’s problem

    Colonel Haiku (c3b130)

  414. Mr. Feets – A question for you. Does a potential union between a transgendered person who now has a woman’s plumbing and a lesbian count as same sex marriage?

    h/t Ace

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  415. Does a potential union between a transgendered person who now has a woman’s plumbing and a lesbian count as same sex marriage?

    that counts as HOT!… as long as they’re not chubby.

    Colonel Haiku (c3b130)

  416. Colonel – Then you don’t want to click on the link to see the shirtless trans lesbian person what the lesbian says is not part of her community and basically says she would not sleep with the trans person if the trans person were the last vagina on erf.

    I’m just asking questions and want to know whether the law goes by claimed gender identity, chromosomal gender identity or what?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  417. QUESTION: Would the chick that used to be a dude wear the strap-on?

    [Where's Miss Manners when you need her!]

    Icy (d77659)

  418. I think the chick wearing the M.U.F.F. T-shirt would pick up that strap-on.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  419. happyfeet,

    My attempted point(s) in 359 and 364 (and not to harp on it)was to show that when stereotypes are used to push a point (whether pro or con) re SSM, or even to attempt to use a stereotype to break a stereotype, the attempt gets lost in the manipulation.

    Both sides do this. It lacks integrity. However, it seems more acceptable (perhaps because of our president’s tacit approval) to use bitter clingers are the symbol of the last hold-out bigotry against SSM (as if everyone against it clearly is a bitter clinger), yet if any cultural stereotype is used regard gays in order to push the not for SSM point, the people are routinely castigated.

    Dana (292dcf)

  420. Daley, you are just a H8R. You are supposed to be accepting of…everything these days!

    Except Republicans, of course. It’s fine to hate them gay, straight, transgendered, married, single, whatever. Perfectly acceptable.

    As for your actual question, there is a transexual SF author who is in precisely the situation you describe, and considers herself lesbian and wants to get SSM’ed. Seems complicated to me, but okay.

    Which would be fine, so long as she was, um, not very accepting of arrangements that she doesn’t like. I think that is a good summary, she wants the government to support things that she personally likes, and to reject things that she personally does not like.

    So it sure isn’t about freedom.

    Sigh. Honestly, I think most of this is over how supporting something makes one feel about oneself…instead of what might make the most sense for a large and diverse nation.

    Actually, that concept—that people will support an idea not because of what it is or does, but because of how supporting that idea makes them feel about themselves, personally—explains a lot.

    Which is how we get a gay judge hearing a case involving gay marriage…but we could not have a fundamentalist Christian judge on a case involving atheism. Right?

    Simon Jester (ce55b0)

  421. oops… 363, too…

    Dana (292dcf)

  422. Got some decent Mexican at La Fogata in San Antonio. The taco joints had beer and bottle margaritas on ice.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  423. And Dana, thanks for always being clear spoken, fair minded. and always on-topic. I like to post less and less these days for a variety of reasons, but whenever you (and some other folks I respect) post, I read what you write carefully and think about it deeply.

    Simon Jester (ce55b0)

  424. By his logic, gay relationships could be banned merely because of a belief that they are more prone to abuse.

    http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/homosexual-parenting-is-it-time-for-change

    Violence between same-sex partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.

    What is K-Man’s answer to that?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  425. “Daley, you are just a H8R. You are supposed to be accepting of…everything these days!”

    Simon – Heh! I was not expressing an opinion one way or another I just found it interesting that there was so much hate and lack of acceptance and tolerance between the various “victim” groups in the video. As various folks commenting on it said such as Iowahawk and Ace each marginalized group expects their victim card to trump other arguments and when it doesn’t because of competing victim cards, confusion reigns.

    I seriously have no idea what the law says on the subject I raised. Can two dudes go to city hall to get married in a state which does not allow SSM and if a justice of the peace objects one of says, but you don’t understand, I am a woman? Well all right then!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  426. Oh, it’s an odd world, daley. But I do think that people are thinking emotionally, not practically (and I am pointing a finger at that silly judge who is at the center of Patterico’s post).

    But I am reminded of something very, very smart a college president once told me. He said that some people would rather have a cause than an effect.

    It made me think.

    Simon Jester (ce55b0)

  427. 315. Thanks for the link, I scanned a shorter piece by McConnell somewhere that was not as cerebrally satisfying.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  428. 427. I first heard the notion “some people jump to a cause for any effect”

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  429. I don’t think any of those people in the vid have very fulfilling lives or hope. They really don’t seem happy, do they? They claim victimhood but also seem to revel in it. They say that they are misunderstood–yet so very clearly they invite even more scorn and disapproval by how they dress, speak and interact in public.

    elissa (b379e0)

  430. Re: 428…yes, I liked Narcisco’s link very much.

    Judicial activism is an attractive danger to all. And the “downstream” effects may not be what people wish. Like the old saying from woodworkers: measure twice, cut once.

    Works for me.

    Simon Jester (ce55b0)

  431. Steve57: “Taco Bell’s relationship to actual Mexican food is a different thing. I’m reminded of a place I discovered back in the 1980s in Salzburg, Austria. Me and my friends were a little tired of nothing but German food and we came across this Mexican place.

    Turns out somebody had only seen pictures of Mexican food and decided to open a restaurant on that basis. It was awful; it kinda sorta looked like Mexican food but no. But it was doing well. All the cosmopolitan Austrians were convinced it was the sophisticated place to be.”

    When I was last in Prague in the Czech Republic, the local restaurant fad was “Czech Mex” – their version of mexican food. It wasn’t bad but only if you pretended it wasn’t mexican food.

    SPQR (768505)

  432. Good observation, elissa. Presenting oneself as a victim can lend authority, and psychological Kevlar.

    The problem is that there are genuine victims who never speak up.

    Simon Jester (ce55b0)

  433. Steve57: “Taco Bell’s relationship to actual Mexican food is a different thing. I’m reminded of a place I discovered back in the 1980s in Salzburg, Austria. Me and my friends were a little tired of nothing but German food and we came across this Mexican place.

    Turns out somebody had only seen pictures of Mexican food and decided to open a restaurant on that basis. It was awful; it kinda sorta looked like Mexican food but no. But it was doing well. All the cosmopolitan Austrians were convinced it was the sophisticated place to be.”

    When I was last in Prague in the Czech Republic, the local restaurant fad was “Czech Mex” – their version of mexican food. It wasn’t bad but only if you pretended it wasn’t mexican food.

    As a foodie, this entire comment cracked me up. It is amazing the garbage people will tolerate in order to be aT the trendy place.

    JD (b63a52)

  434. A new Italian pizzeria near my neighborhood that was run by Mexicans and had lots of advertising and coupons but not very good service or pizza, just got busted as a major drug distribution hub and delivery system. I guess it was never about the food, huh?

    elissa (b379e0)

  435. 417. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/23/2013 @ 11:14 am

    Help me… my eyes!

    Colonel Haiku (1b254c)

  436. “He said that some people would rather have a cause than an effect.”

    Simon – Funny how some “causes” actually almost become the identity of some people and are in many ways a substitute for religion, see environmentalism, progressivism, etc. Faith, not facts required.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  437. Great thread, Pat!

    Bill M (c7f289)

  438. I admit, I have a tremendous sex drive. My girlfriend lives 40 miles away.

    Colonel Haiku (1b254c)

  439. Colonel – One time my wife asked why wives outlived their husbands. I said because they are not married to women.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  440. Colonel – Any married man should forget his mistakes because there’s no use in two people remembering the same thing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  441. daley #437: absolutely. It’s like there must be something like religion in everyone’s psyche. And if it isn’t religion, it is some kind of issue, usually self-identified.

    I never understood “non-negotiable” criteria in everyday life, unless it was involved in religion. Maybe that is also true with atheists.

    But who knows?

    Simon Jester (ce55b0)

  442. Simon – I consider militant atheism a religion.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  443. Hey, who’s missing a stompy boot?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  444. 434.

    Steve57: “Taco Bell’s relationship to actual Mexican food is a different thing. I’m reminded of a place I discovered back in the 1980s in Salzburg, Austria. Me and my friends were a little tired of nothing but German food and we came across this Mexican place.

    Turns out somebody had only seen pictures of Mexican food and decided to open a restaurant on that basis…

    As a foodie, this entire comment cracked me up. It is amazing the garbage people will tolerate in order to be aT the trendy place.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/23/2013 @ 12:21 pm

    It used to crack me up too. Then I went into the restaurant biz and found out what kind of havoc these places deal out.

    The problem with Pancho Baron Bismark von Osterreich’s Mexican eatery in Salzburg is that its victims don’t know they haven’t had Mexican food. They get sucked in once cuz it’s trendy. Like me, they think the food is crap. Unlike me, they think now they don’t like Mexican food.

    I opened a Japanese place in Texas, and a lot of my friends were like, “I tried Japanese food and didn’t like it.” Upon further inquiry I found they hadn’t had Japanese food. It started getting trendy and everyone opened Japanese themed places from “Adam’s School of Truck Driving and Hibachi House” to “Yolanda’s Beauty Supply, Bait Shop, and Sushi Repair.”

    Not all these people are con artists, don’t get me wrong. Most are convinced they’re whipping up the genuine article. I wandered in to a place that opened within walking distance of my house last Mother’s Day. Nicest people in the world. They gave me free shots of tequila. I ordered sushi. I stayed for…the tequila.

    People, if they’ve got “Louisiana Dynamite” this or “Wasabi Tearjercker” that it’s because they’re serving up bad fish. Sriracha and horse radish covers a lot of sins.

    Don’t get me wrong. I believe in capitalism. People should be free to open a really crappy restaurant. Just as I should be free to open a good one. Still, it’s a frustrating side effect that I get to be told by former patrons of “Wally Thor’s School of Welding and Ramen Supply” that having tried Japanese cuisine they don’t like it.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  445. A new Italian pizzeria near my neighborhood that was run by Mexicans and had lots of advertising and coupons but not very good service or pizza, just got busted as a major drug distribution hub and delivery system. I guess it was never about the food, huh?

    Comment by elissa (b379e0) — 3/23/2013 @ 12:29 pm

    Makes me wonder if they served a true herb-crusted pizza.

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  446. 429. ..in the late 70′s. Sorry have no source.

    I’m working on finishing thoughts. Gotta start somewheres.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  447. Daley #443: so do I, and it makes some friends of mine very unhappy with me. Which doesn’t make me (and you) wrong.

    Simon Jester (ce55b0)

  448. Do not..do not blame me
    I voted for 2001 Big Space Baby so fuck ya all
    local-had to go with ‘eraserhead ‘ baby
    cuz he had the best halloween wrap
    and he had an ‘Orca free willy’ projectI never wrote amen
    Amen!

    twinkle twinkle (2648f1)

  449. A new Italian pizzeria near my neighborhood that was run by Mexicans and had lots of advertising and coupons but not very good service or pizza, just got busted as a major drug distribution hub and delivery system. I guess it was never about the food, huh?

    No doubt they cribbed the idea from certain Italian pizzeria owners during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  450. Mexican astronaunts showed up at my door..
    looking for a cure
    they point
    respectfully at first..
    up..at the stars..dreamer they are
    oh..wait..they are animated..irish jig.. what?
    my roof is on fire!
    THank u Mexican smellty people
    ‘Learn English

    pdbuttons (2648f1)

  451. Whee- I got the run of the lil ol patty rico
    He like the Bodeans- i wanna apologize cuz i was an ado annie jerk with all that I was say the bodeans suck so..
    I have a bodeans album[they suck! ooops-I have an album! I [kinda[ suck]
    If u like the Bo [Suck] Fucking Suck suck Deans than sucky suck the.. heres two or three white guys oops
    males.oops

    Ricky Nelson
    Everly BrothersStop the plane crash discrimination!
    We’re hee..mmm..splattered..but here

    on yoyo runway/not a funway..
    not a bunway….derb derb

    pdbuttons (2648f1)

  452. Comment by pdbuttons (2648f1) — 3/23/2013 @ 4:45 pm

    uhhhhhhhh…….what? Sorry, but my brain isn’t that far off, and 1/2 my family is Mexican. Please, do pardon me if I don’t quite get your insinuation.

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  453. Mexican pardon-press one

    pdbuttons (2648f1)

  454. What..no victim comeback?

    pdbuttons (2648f1)

  455. that was nice how they helpfully pointed out about your roof

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  456. El gato consiguio su tonge?

    pdbuttons (2648f1)

  457. Life could be a dream
    sha’boom/ sha’boom

    pdbuttons (2648f1)

  458. Fly robin fly
    up up to the sky

    pdbuttons (2648f1)

  459. Bobby

    pdbuttons (2648f1)

  460. This thread needs a sweet, romantic, but still perky, song. Safe for kindergarten. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytMT2ZGCY-Q

    nk (c5b7ef)

  461. I think most of the bases have been covered, blown up, and then covered again,

    narciso (3fec35)

  462. Simon – I consider militant atheism a religion.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/23/2013 @ 2:13 pm

    It is a religion because they take their belief on faith. Environmentalism is also a religion and Michael Crichton had a great speech on such.

    http://www.pe.tamu.edu/DL_Program/graduate_seminar_series/Documents/MichaelCrichton_evironmentalism.pdf

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  463. This thread needs a sweet, romantic, but still perky, song.

    nk, here is another sweet, romantic love song. Also safe for anywhere.

    Chuck Bartowski (ad7249)

  464. By his logic, gay relationships could be banned merely because of a belief that they are more prone to abuse.

    http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/homosexual-parenting-is-it-time-for-change

    Violence between same-sex partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.

    What is K-Man’s answer to that?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 3/23/2013 @ 11:35 am

    Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96)

  465. thank you Mr. narciso I do not think rove is correct however and I base that opinion on what I see as a pattern Team R has of nominating cowardly pandering losers

    banning gay marriage is deep deep deep in the dna of most people what want to be the Team R nominee – think Perry, Roobs, Ryan, Santorum

    the ones with the more fresh thinkings are the Rand Paul and the exorcist

    porky porky chris christie doesn’t give a damn about banning gay marriage he has a state to run – either that or porky porky chris christie doesn’t give a damn about NOT banning gay marriage he has a state to run

    or whatever

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  466. oops correction

    Roobs thinks gay marriage should be left to the states so he’s more in the rand paul/exorcist axis

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  467. You missed the whole point of prop 8, and 187, and 229, there is no getting away from a federal imposition of whatever positive liberty they wish
    upon you, the Missouri court that struck the down
    the Obamacare ban, is another example.

    narciso (3fec35)

  468. By his logic, gay relationships could be banned merely because of a belief that they are more prone to abuse.

    http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/homosexual-parenting-is-it-time-for-change

    Violence between same-sex partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.

    What is K-Man’s answer to that?
    Comment by Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 3/23/2013 @ 11:35 am

    Inquiring minds would like to know. But given kman’s standard with polygamous marriages, I think a consistent answer from kman’s would be in favor of banning SSM and homosexual relationships all together. But then kman isn’t consistent, is it?

    Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96)

  469. Can anyone tell me how the California Supreme Court got a right to same sex marriage out of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution when there were anti-sodomy laws on and left on as law when and after equal protection was added to the California Constitution?

    If the equal protection clause gave a right to SSM why weren’t the anti-sodomy laws immediately revoked?

    Judge Walker is a partisan hack, the way he handled the case, the illegal use of the courtroom videos, and now the email messages prove it. Since when is case law not proof enough? If you have history and case law behind you there is no need for expert witnesses. The history and case law stand alone and above an expert witness.

    Comment by Tanny O’Haley (4c5a96) — 3/22/2013 @ 11:34 pm

    I would really like to know. Can anyone give me a logical answer? Please. I would like to learn.

    Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96)

  470. Mr. narciso all of those stupid propositions banning gay marriage are all about circumscribing the liberty of a wee small minority to pattern the ordering of their affairs after how the majority orders their own affairs

    what stupid republicans fail at in their embrace of this bigotry is to grasp the nature of the sea change what is occurring in america with respect to gay people and their marriagings

    this sea change in thinking is abetted a bit by our fascist media of course

    but it hardly ends there that’s just what’s most visible

    a sea change of this order means what you’re seeing is that influential people are on board – influential NOT meaning your feckless Mitt Mitt losers or your pasty pasty Preibuses (sp?)

    - but influential meaning people in everyone’s everyday lives whose opinions are respected rather more than others – this is how paradigmn shifts on the order of what we’re seeing with gay marriage are facilitated

    these are not people a smart political party wants to antagonize

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  471. Mr. narciso all of those stupid propositions banning gay marriage are all about circumscribing the liberty of a wee small minority to pattern the ordering of their affairs after how the majority orders their own affairs

    the fallacy in your argument is the assumption that “marrying” someone of the same sex is a liberty.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  472. Previous precedents, as in the Gitmo detainees cases, have to be ignored, Tammy, just because, technically Walker would say, that these laws are voided retroactively, but I don’t think that was stated in Scharzenegger v. Perry, it helped that neither Brown as atty general, or Schwartzenegger as Gov, would not uphold the proposition, that the voters ratified.

    narciso (3fec35)

  473. it’s a liberty in 18% of the several states at present Mr. Ejercito

    it is a banned activity in 82% of the several states at present

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  474. You are illustrating the problem, more then 3/4 of the country doesn’t want it.

    narciso (3fec35)

  475. Mr. narciso this is a country what just voted to reelect a gay marriage-loving fascist food stamp whore to the office of the presidency

    that’s a very curious way to register their overwhelming opposition to the gay marriagings I think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  476. So you’re telling me, they want Obamacare and the spendings, keep pushing that boulder.

    narciso (3fec35)

  477. The wider issue is where all these demands for new rights come from;

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_wine_women_and_song_foundation.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  478. yes i think the people what voted for the gay marriage-loving fascist food stamp whore do indeed want Obamacare and the spendings

    and the gay marriagings are obviously not any kind of deal-breaker to a majority of the american electorate – which, conincidentally, is the same electorate what would need to elect a Republican who could right the moral course of the nation by pushing for and winning a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  479. *coincidentally* I mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  480. Happyfeet,

    you just don’t get it. Homosexual relationships are intrinsically different than heterosexual relationships. There is ZERO chance of procreation through homosexual activity. The government only has an interest in marriage because it creates a stable environment for the next generation to be created and raised within. That cannot happen with homosexual sex. There is no reason for the government to comply with your wishes to endorse such activity.

    If homosexuals wish to get married, do so in a private ceremony. There is ZERO reason for that ceremony to be recognized by the State at large.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  481. that’s a very narrow view of marriage – most normal people don’t think of marriage as a federally-sponsored breeding program I don’t think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  482. It doesn’t matter what people THINK marriage is, the only purpose for the State to recognize marriage is for protecting the offspring of the next generation. the State has a vested interest in making sure that a child is taken care of and not on the public dole. We know from countless studies that nuclear families are a much more stable environment for a child than unwed or single families.

    Why else would the government even consider it necessary to recognize marriage when a uniform contract for transfer of goods, visitation rights, etc would do?

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  483. nuclear families are a much more stable environment

    married people comprise a sturdier economic unit than do single people – they’re more resilient and they can create wealth and retain it if the other dies, as opposed to surrendering it to the squandering fascist government

    our fascist State surely has no vested interest in this

    but the rest of us do

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  484. married people comprise a sturdier economic unit than do single people – they’re more resilient and they can create wealth and retain it if the other dies, as opposed to surrendering it to the squandering fascist government

    our fascist State surely has no vested interest in this

    but the rest of us do

    Once again, you’re merely quoting something that can be done by contract. The purpose of marriage is for the offspring created through normal activity. You keep avoiding acknowledging the obvious. Why is that?

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  485. because in 9 states this scheme where marriage is reduced to a government program for duggaring out womens to the glory of the lord has already been rejected

    done and done

    and that debased view of marriage will be rejected by more and more people in more and more states, and quick quick quick quick like a bunny as these things go

    the debate is no longer about whether Team R will lose the gay marriage debate

    it’s about how

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  486. civil unions.

    Colonel Haiku (e75072)

  487. post 471… +10… this Walker “fella” had no shame, ethics, morals, or honesty.

    One thing he did have was a plan on how he was going to tip “the scales”, and tip them, he did.

    Colonel Haiku (e75072)

  488. ==most normal people don’t think of marriage as a federally-sponsored breeding program I don’t think==

    Especially not the sweet 84 year old widow who just married a very nice 83 year old widower in a lovely wedding ceremony at the retirement home where I sometimes volunteer. Frankly, I do not expect a lot of breeding from this pair. But the legitimacy and formal acknowledgement of their relationship was quite important to them.

    elissa (fcea98)

  489. Mr. Colonel opposition to civil unions was written right smack dab into the Team R platform

    that ship has sailed

    please to join us for cocktails on the lido deck

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  490. happyfeet,

    It’s true the 2012 Democratic platform embraced civil unions but the 2008 platform did not. Was that because Democrats are so much more principled and fair than Republicans, or was that because Obama feared he would lose the election by coming out in 2008 and that he would lose the 2012 by staying in the closet?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  491. ==it doesn’t matter what people THINK marriage is, the only purpose for the State to recognize marriage is for protecting the offspring of the next generation. the State has a vested interest in making sure that a child is taken care of and not on the public dole. We know from countless studies that nuclear families are a much more stable environment for a child than unwed or single families.==

    All of what you say here is absolutely true– in theory. It is most certainly the ideal way. But anyone living in this country over the past 30 or so years and who is even marginally aware of current societal circumstances must see that that ship has sailed. With the rates of divorce, non marriage living together, and illegitimacy across all races and economic levels, not to mention multiple generations “on the dole” in some communities, to even pretend that the state is involved in protecting marriage and children is foolish at best.

    elissa (fcea98)

  492. ==most normal people don’t think of marriage as a federally-sponsored breeding program I don’t think==

    Especially not the sweet 84 year old widow who just married a very nice 83 year old widower in a lovely wedding ceremony at the retirement home where I sometimes volunteer. Frankly, I do not expect a lot of breeding from this pair. But the legitimacy and formal acknowledgement of their relationship was quite important to them.

    Comment by elissa (fcea98) — 3/24/2013 @ 12:57 pm

    Except even at their age they are still representative of the family unit as a whole. They are the 2 sexes that create life. When someone sees an elderly couple together they naturally think they’ve lived a life together and had a family. There is no disconnect as their is with purely homosexual relationship.

    Happyfeet, your obvious bigotry towards the church notwithstanding, why do you refuse to acknowledge the purpose of the State recognizing marriage which has nothing to do with religion. I’ve been clear on this purpose many times and I’ve not once brought religion into it. Your straw men are unwarranted.

    Sure, people that understand the purpose of marriage have been losing this argument because we’ve allowed you and your ilk to dictate the terms of the engagement. That’s why I am clear when I talk about homosexual relationships and how they differ from heterosexual ones. That’s why I explain in detail that the only reason for the State to have a vested interest in marriage is for the potential of copulation and the resulting offspring. It has nothing to do with religion and has nothing to do with love. Marriage as an institution is necessary to protect children.

    This platform is all any defender of marriage needs to use and counter with any statistic that shows how the dilution of marriage has been harmful to children.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  493. All of what you say here is absolutely true– in theory. It is most certainly the ideal way. But anyone living in this country over the past 30 or so years and who is even marginally aware of current societal circumstances must see that that ship has sailed. With the rates of divorce, non marriage living together, and illegitimacy across all races and economic levels, not to mention multiple generations “on the dole” in some communities, to even pretend that the state is involved in protecting marriage and children is foolish at best.

    Comment by elissa (fcea98) — 3/24/2013 @ 1:17 pm

    So because one ship has sailed we should give up bailing water and just let society as a whole sink into the mire? There’s a reason that there is such a break in today’s country between those of the left and those of the right. What we have now isn’t working. There is no reason to continue down the path of familial destruction when all that leads to is Hillary Clinton’s “it takes a village” style of child rearing. We have to take back cultural institutions; not cede more ground.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  494. “but influential meaning people in everyone’s everyday lives whose opinions are respected rather more than others”

    Mr. Feets – Influential people in the 17th century bought bought tulip bulbs. It was a real gosh darn paradigm shift, but it didn’t last long.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  495. “I do not think rove is correct however and I base that opinion on what I see as a pattern Team R has of nominating cowardly pandering losers”

    Mr. Feets – How does this contrast with Team D’s habit of running cowardly lying pandering losers who say one thing while campaigning and turn around and do something else if they are elected?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  496. DRJ I don’t feel like doing my own researchings cause i have the lazy sundays but I will try

    I think you can contrast the 2008 platforms this way:

    from your link here is what the fascists said in 2008:

    It is not enough to look back in wonder at how far we have come; those who came before us did not strike a blow against injustice only so that we would allow injustice to fester in our time. That means removing the barriers of prejudice and misunderstanding that still exist in America. We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.

    while here is what Team R said:

    Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

    [...]

    Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.

    note the bolded part

    while the fascists may not have called for civil unions specifically they certainly struck a more inclusive tone than did Team R, who seem quite bigoty on this subject in my view

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  497. It’s true the 2012 Democratic platform embraced civil unions but the 2008 platform did not. Was that because Democrats are so much more principled and fair than Republicans, or was that because Obama feared he would lose the election by coming out in 2008 and that he would lose the 2012 by staying in the closet?

    Obama is reportedly bisexual, so the word “closet” applies to him in more ways than one.

    Incidentally, I mentioned to a big-time liberal, a big devotee of Obama, that there have been fairly good word-of-mouth about the guy engaging in homosexual activity during his years in Chicago. Of course, still hearsay, but if I had to bet a million bucks on the grapevine being legit or not, I’d bet the talk is true. (Even more so when there are stories like the one several weeks ago about Obama taking a holiday trip to Florida with his former “body man,” while the misses and the kids went to Colorado.) The dyed-in-the-wool liberal I was speaking with became quite indignant about that assertion. I asked her “why are you so resentful about the rumor? After all, your party is making homosexuality such a cause celebe, so if Obama has sex with guys, shouldn’t you think that makes him cool?!”

    She reminds me of someone like happyfeet, who loves to say how wonderful same-sex marriage is, yet will turn around and use the word “gay” in a pejorative manner. IOW, a classic example of “limousine liberalism.”

    Mark (d57c6a)

  498. tulip bulbs are similar to gay marriage in some ways mr. daley but in other ways they are very dissimilar indeed

    for one thing if you speak out against tulip bulbs at work you probably won’t do any particular damage to your career

    but if you speak out against gay marriage at work oh my goodness that’s not a smart career move is it no it’s not

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  499. tulip bulbs are similar to gay marriage in some ways mr. daley

    for example if you put either of them in the microwave they won’t blossom and grow

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  500. too much giggidigiggig-gayness on a Sunday of March Madness B-Ball!

    Colonel Haiku (e75072)

  501. The government only has an interest in marriage because it creates a stable environment for the next generation to be created and raised within.

    But many liberals who tout SSM equate it with civil rights, sometimes evoking the struggle of blacks in the 1960s, etc. IOW, they like to associate homosexuality with 100%-innate aspects of humans, such as skin color, hair texture, facial characteristics. But many on the left also use the acronym “LGBT,” and shrug off the inclusion and meaning of bisexuality. So if homosexuality is analogous to racial differences, then that makes bisexuality analogous to a human who can (like magic!) change his racial features at will. Black one day, white the next.

    Or if catering to innate aspects of human nature is a very important facet of why instituting SSM is a worthy cause, then the naturally non-monogamous behavior of most males (straight or the “GB” in “GLBT”) also needs to be addressed. Therefore, accommodating multi-partner relationships needs to be addressed, since that also caters to intrinsic human behavior. If anything, polygamy not only is more historically common than SSM, it actually applies to far more humans in general than the homosexuality amongst them does.

    Mark (d57c6a)

  502. and nothin’ from nothin’, but was watching the Bible mini-series recently and noted that God sure wasn’t very family-friendly back in those days… lots of smotin’ goin’ on…

    Colonel Haiku (e75072)

  503. did you like the bible miniseries my friend M said he thought the production values sucked and that it was a lot less epic than he expected and a lot more talky talky drama drama

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  504. Or if catering to innate aspects of human nature is a very important facet of why instituting SSM is a worthy cause, then the naturally non-monogamous behavior of most males (straight or the “GB” in “GLBT”) also needs to be addressed. Therefore, accommodating multi-partner relationships needs to be addressed, since that also caters to intrinsic human behavior. If anything, polygamy not only is more historically common than SSM, it actually applies to far more humans in general than the homosexuality amongst them does.

    Comment by Mark (d57c6a) — 3/24/2013 @ 2:58 pm

    They will get to that in due course. This is all about the destruction of the family unit as they have been on a this path for 50 years. The end goal is to replace the family with the government. After all, we all know how successful the government has been when they replace daddy.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  505. ==So because one ship has sailed we should give up bailing water and just let society as a whole sink into the mire? ==

    Perspective is funny. For example, I think the repulsive and despicable Nanny Bloomberg sincerely believes that in his own way he, too, is nobly trying to keep society from sinking into the mire.

    Me? I’m an admirer of the sentiment and words of the serenity prayer. And I guess I prefer for societal change or societal salvation (depending how one views it) to come about not through laws or bans or subsidies or tax credits or government actions– but via gradual personalized involvement and commitment by individuals within their communities.

    elissa (fcea98)

  506. i love the family unit so much

    but I also love gay people

    and tacos

    and Disney World

    and mountains

    and cheap brandy from mexico

    and pelicans

    and silly tv shows about vampires

    and Louisiana

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  507. 477. that’s a very curious way to register their overwhelming opposition to the gay marriagings I think

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/24/2013 @ 11:18 am

    How about voting against gay marriage? Or rather, voting to keep marriage the way it’s always been. Between a man and a woman.

    Food stamp came out against marriage as the people define it and for marriage as ACORN defines it right about when the people of North Carolina voted not to get scammed and keep marriage just the way it is, thank you very much, by over 60%. You’ll note food stamp was careful to say he thought it was a state issue.

    Obviously he lied. Just like he’s lying now when he has his solicitor general argue that DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but don’t worry other states we only mean in Kali. Because, hey, if 51+% were stupid enough to fall for him twice, maybe they’re stupid enough for that.

    Now I’m sure the NYT or Washington Blade or Windy City LGBT Times will come out any day with a poll that all those votes didn’t mean anything because now the whole freakin’ nation is 100% metrosexual and if you give the electorate a choice between A) gays should be burned at the stake or B) gays should have the right to marry an overwhelming magority of people really don’t want to burn gays at the stake.

    If only because of the carbon footprint which would be bad for Gaia. Plus burning gays at the stake is bad for trees.

    I’m just having a hard time seeing this “paradigm shift” when, if asked, people say, “no we aren’t going to change the definition of marriage to the point where it has nothing to do with procreation.”

    I mean, sure, we got polls that say all those votes really shouldn’t count because all those votes, say the gay marriage advocates, were before those selfsame gay marriage advocates convinced the unwashed of the error of their ways. But now, boy, if they had it to do over the unwashed having seen the path of righteousness would do it differently.

    And so now the gay marriage advocates are using those polls to convince the SCOTUS to make damned sure that hypothesis never gets tested and to make gay marriage a Constitutional right that’s not up to a vote.

    Got it.

    What I don’t get is how food stamp’s reelection proves one thing one way or the the other. Especially when he went out of his way to to make sure that now that he was coming out for gay marriage after being against gay marriage when he decided his previous stance of being for gay marriage wouldn’t actually be an issue because he advertised the fact it wasn’t a federal issue.

    Before he filed his amicus brief and made it a federal issue.

    I’d love to join you on the lido deck and discuss, Mr. Feets, but I’ve got a prior invitation to join the VP on the fantail to do a little skeet shooting. I really don’t want to, but I figure the only way to make sure Slow Joe Biden doesn’t shoot me through the door of my stateroom is maintain a constant visual on the guy.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  508. i don’t know if DOMA is unconstitutional per se but it really is a strange little law I think

    I don’t think what the Supreme Court is gonna do is gonna be super-important to the eventual trajectory of the issue

    but you never know i guess

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  509. Perspective is funny. For example, I think the repulsive and despicable Nanny Bloomberg sincerely believes that in his own way he, too, is nobly trying to keep society from sinking into the mire.

    Me? I’m an admirer of the sentiment and words of the serenity prayer. And I guess I prefer for societal change or societal salvation (depending how one views it) to come about not through laws or bans or subsidies or tax credits or government actions– but via gradual personalized involvement and commitment by individuals within their communities.

    Comment by elissa (fcea98) — 3/24/2013 @ 3:17 pm

    There is no equating the fundamental building block of society, marriage, and the lazy, fascist mentality of an elected official. Mayor Bloomberg is trying to create his own sociological experiment that has failed time and time again in society: to enslave the populace and dictate what they must do in order to have a semblance of freedom.

    Marriage as an institution has been proven to be the most stable environment to raise children and has also been a civilizing factor on men. A man’s natural inclination is to spread his seed as far and wide as possible, while a marriage instead keeps him loyal to his family and around to raise those children. Without that purpose of marriage, we just encourage the former behavior and all the societal harm that then naturally occurs.

    That’s why out of wedlock children deal with greatly higher rates of dysfunction. It’s why single mothers come to depend on the government to help raise their children. A child without a father and a mother suffers from that lack of stability that having a father and mother bring. Children need a father and a mother.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  510. i don’t know if DOMA is unconstitutional per se but it really is a strange little law I think

    I don’t think what the Supreme Court is gonna do is gonna be super-important to the eventual trajectory of the issue

    but you never know i guess

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/24/2013 @ 3:26 pm

    How is DOMA a strange law? It is federalism at its finest. It states that State’s can make up their own marriage laws, but that for federal and inter-state purposes, marriage is as has always been defined: that of the union between one man and one woman.
    Sounds like they respect the legal process. That’s a rather rare occurrence this day and age, but there’s nothing strange about it.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  511. it’s strange cause it ends up with the weirdo situation where Republicans are defending and even pom-pom waving our fascist federal government’s exorbitant and redistributiony taxation of a dead lesbian’s estate

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  512. it’s strange cause it ends up with the weirdo situation where Republicans are defending and even pom-pom waving our fascist federal government’s exorbitant and redistributiony taxation of a dead lesbian’s estate

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/24/2013 @ 3:42 pm

    Your statement is nonsensical. If you have a problem with the tax code, you go after the tax code. You don’t go after an institution that was designed to protect the children of a union between a man and a woman.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  513. nobody is “going after” marriage they’re just gonna let gay people get married to each other is all

    it’ll be a good thing

    you’ll see

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  514. That’s why out of wedlock children deal with greatly higher rates of dysfunction.

    And that’s why I don’t feel warm and fuzzy about Republicans (or self-labeled conservatives) in the 21st century who proudly say they lean right on economic matters, but lean left (or are “moderate”) on socio-cultural ones. I might have bought that line decades ago, when, for example, in the 1960s it was seen as controversial for Congress to propose a law that banned lynchings, or in the 1950s when a famous Hollywood actress was ostracized (by the Hollywood community itself, no less) for having a child out of wedlock. But not in today’s era, in the who-gives-a-damn, anything-goes 2000s.

    Creating a healthy economy is always that much harder when social-cultural standards throughout a society have or are breaking down, when children of average (much less mediocre) talent and skills (ie, who aren’t similar to a Dr. Ben Carson when he was a youngster) are raised by mothers in single households.

    Mark (d57c6a)

  515. it’ll be a good thing

    No, it’s gay.

    Mark (d57c6a)

  516. That’s why out of wedlock children deal with greatly higher rates of dysfunction.

    And that’s why I don’t feel warm and fuzzy about Republicans (or self-labeled conservatives) in the 21st century who proudly say they lean right on economic matters, but lean left (or are “moderate”) on socio-cultural ones. I might have bought that line decades ago, when, for example, in the 1960s it was seen as controversial for Congress to propose a law that banned lynchings, or in the 1950s when a famous Hollywood actress was ostracized (by the Hollywood community itself, no less) for having a child out of wedlock. But not in today’s era, in the who-gives-a-damn, anything-goes 2000s.

    Creating a healthy economy is always that much harder when social-cultural standards throughout a society have or are breaking down, when children of average (much less mediocre) talent and skills (ie, who aren’t similar to a Dr. Ben Carson when he was a youngster) are raised by mothers in single households.

    Comment by Mark (d57c6a) — 3/24/2013 @ 3:57 pm

    That’s why I’m no longer a Republican. It’s even worse in NJ where they are openly leftist and anti-religion on social issues and only “moderate” on economic issues.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  517. nobody is “going after” marriage they’re just gonna let gay people get married to each other is all

    it’ll be a good thing

    you’ll see

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/24/2013 @ 3:54 pm

    You are completely redefining marriage and destroying the purpose of State recognition of marriage; telling people it’s about love instead of a suitable environment for raising children yet you’re not “going after” marriage? You seriously expect anyone to belief that?

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  518. anyone to believe that*

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  519. You are completely redefining marriage and destroying the purpose of State recognition of marriage…

    that’s a little on the melodramatic side I think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  520. ==Marriage as an institution has been proven to be the most stable environment to raise children and has also been a civilizing factor on men. A man’s natural inclination is to spread his seed as far and wide as possible, while a marriage instead keeps him loyal to his family and around to raise those children. Without that purpose of marriage, we just encourage the former behavior and all the societal harm that then naturally occurs.

    That’s why out of wedlock children deal with greatly higher rates of dysfunction. It’s why single mothers come to depend on the government to help raise their children. A child without a father and a mother suffers from that lack of stability that having a father and mother bring. Children need a father and a mother.==

    NJ Bob, again, you are preaching to the choir. I see no one here who is remotely disagreeing with the traditional importance of the family unit. It is stipulated. OK? What people (like me) are asking you to consider and comment on, though, is the practicality of HOW you expect to turn back the clock and return to the days of children being raised in “Leave it to Beaver”, “Donna Reed”, “Father Knows Best” or even “Huxtable” homes and attending non communist non unionized public schools after 30 years of rot.

    If you’re hoping it will happen through legislation and right leaning officials elected to high office then you have to have a way to get such people elected. Recently we have not been terribly successful in that endeavor. If your plan is something else, what is it? Will stopping the gay marriage juggernaut miraculously bring back the traditional family unit for the millions of Americans who do not have it? I don’t think so. Without a plan it’s just talk and pining for the old days. That’s the point I am trying to make. What is your response?

    elissa (fcea98)

  521. Especially when he went out of his way to to make sure that now that he was coming out for gay marriage after being against gay marriage when he decided his previous stance of being for gay marriage wouldn’t actually be an issue because he advertised the fact it wasn’t a federal issue.

    Painted Jaguar:
    Couldn’t have said it any better myself.

    Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (3d3f72)

  522. If one looked at the actual evidence from history and see how society’s recent changing of law concerning marriage, such as no fault divorce, has impacted society, one would have to say that at least it was unclear, if not downright negative.

    So, if society wants to double down on making mistakes, they can. Just remember who it is that claims to make arguments from “science”, i.e. empirical observation.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  523. We seem to be ‘dialing up to eleven’ on that score, MD, driven in large part by the elements in that American Thinker piece, instead of some real genuine demand, the Joyce driven gun registries,
    campaign finance reform, Obamacare, carbon levies,
    all that is unnecessary, yet seemingly omnipresent,

    narciso (3fec35)

  524. i’d much rather fight on the carbon levy hill than the gay marriage hill I think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  525. i love the family unit so much

    but I also love gay people

    and tacos

    and Disney World

    and mountains

    and cheap brandy from mexico

    and pelicans

    and silly tv shows about vampires

    and Louisiana

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/24/2013 @ 3:20 pm

    Then sad to say Mr. Feets, you don’t know real love at all.

    Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96)

  526. perhaps it’s love’s illusions what I recall

    *sigh*

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  527. but now the question – feets – is have you looked at love from both sides? Be careful how you respond.

    Colonel Haiku (82a701)

  528. we outgrow love like other things and put it in the drawer

    but then sometimes we take it out again

    and spend a lot of money on dinner

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  529. and pelicans

    My oldest son does not like pelicans
    oh no he does not
    because a pelican stole from his line a fish
    that should have gone in a pot

    When he was about 5, fishing off of a pier in Florida, while reeling the fish from the water to the deck of the pier a pelican took it from mid air.
    We have a picture of me restraining him, I think he would have jumped trying to catch the pelican before it got away.

    Oh yes he did. No love lost on Pelicans.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  530. A pelican’s got to live too, doc. He prolly had moufs to feed, too, you know.

    elissa (fcea98)

  531. happyfeet, what the hell is “strange” about DOMA? What could be a more explicit invocation of Congressional power under Article I and V than explicitly stating what forms of marriage are recognized by the Federal government and exercising Congress’ power to decide what must be given Full Faith and Credit?

    SPQR (768505)

  532. we already discussed the strangeness at #513

    since then i made dinner and listened to several entertaining musics and I think I took a shower in there somewhere so I’m clean and fed and youknow

    I might could pour me a little vodka

    I done had a productive weekend already

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  533. Mr. Feets, Paolo, King of the Gauchos and Lord of the Pampas will be performing a late show of his world renowned display of his mastery of the of the boleadoras in the Armada Lounge just off the main floor of the casino on the promenade deck.

    Perhaps when you’re done with cocktails on the lido deck you can join me elevinish for a Carpaccio of Guanaco and a bottle of sturdy Chilean red wine.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  534. did you know that when it airs in Serbia the tv show Nashville is called Nešvil?

    i bet you didn’t know that and if you say you did I bet you’re lying

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  535. If Joe Biden doesn’t blast me to kingdom come during the fantail skeet shoot.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  536. man you live right Mr. 57

    you sure do

    are you sailing to Hong King as we speak for the battle royale?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  537. *Hing Kong* I mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  538. It’s even worse in NJ where they are openly leftist and anti-religion on social issues and only “moderate” on economic issues.

    The cyclical nature of humans, and their history, is both fascinating and appalling. My question is how bad do things have to become (socially and economically) before a majority of people cry “uncle!”? Before they wake up and get a clue? The answer? Very, very bad. Detroit-city bad. Mexico-Argentina-France bad. Or Greece bad (ie modern-day version, and not even the ancient one). So bad that your niche of America known as New Jersey is but the tip of the iceberg (global warming or not).

    Putting aside the theological implications (or pure religiosity) of the Bible, even a secularist should find it interesting about how one notorious portion of its text is a reflection of human nature, whether pro or con, through the eons.

    christianity.about.com: When the two angels [disguised as human males] arrived at Sodom that evening, Abraham’s nephew Lot met them at the city gate. Lot and his family lived in Sodom. He took the two men to his home and fed them. Then all the men of the city surrounded Lot’s house and said, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” (Genesis 19:5, NIV) By ancient custom, the visitors were under Lot’s protection. Lot was so infected by the wickedness of Sodom that he offered the homosexuals his two virgin daughters instead. Furious, the mob rushed up to break down the door.

    The angels struck the rioters blind! Leading Lot, his wife, and two daughters by the hand, the angels hurried them out of the city. The girls’ fiancés would not listen and stayed behind.

    Notice the words of the famous Greek philosopher Plato, who originally made comments that sound surprisingly like those of a modern-day liberal—like an Obama spouting off about people in small American towns who “cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them…”:

    religionfacts.com: Homosexual relationships seem to have been prevalent in ancient Greece. It is possible Achilles and Patroclus of Homer’s Iliad were icons of male homosexuality. Aristotle stated that the Cretans encouraged homosexuality as a population controller on the island community in his Politics. Greek poets wrote of same-sex love and notable philosophers and writers such as Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, and pseudo-Lucian discussed the topic. Plato is quoted as commenting:
    ——-
    “Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.”
    ——-
    The form of homosexuality that was most common in ancient Greece was pederasty, meaning a relationship between an adult man and a male youth. For the Greeks, pederasty was more than a sexual pasttime or preference–it was nearly a social institution. A same-sex relationship between an older man, probably in his 20s or 30s, known as the erastes, and a beardless boy, the eromenos or paidika, became a cultural ideal.

    One important passage from ancient Greece that speaks against homosexuality is Plato’s Laws 636c. Here the character of the Athenian stranger rejects homosexual behavior as “unnatural” (para physin), describes it as an “enormity” or “crime” (tolmema), and attributes it to “unbridled lust.” Opinions are divided as to whether this is Plato’s own belief, and whether it applies to homosexuality between equals, pederasty, or both.

    ^ Brings to mind the saying: “As much as things change, some things never change.”

    Or: “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.”

    Or: “What goes around, comes around.”

    And: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves…”

    Mark (d57c6a)

  539. Rudy Ray Moore said
    “back that rig up over here”
    You knew what he meant

    Colonel Haiku (5a053f)

  540. 536. did you know that when it airs in Serbia the tv show Nashville is called Nešvil?

    i bet you didn’t know that and if you say you did I bet you’re lying

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/24/2013 @ 5:15 pm

    Dude, after 20 years in the Navy I know or once knew a lot of crap that if I told you you’d say I was lying about.

    Like, how to order a Vodka Gibson, hold the mustard, in KiSwahili in a Mombasa bar.

    I really could do that once. Then I started spending more time in Korea and Japan, and well priorities being priorities the KiSwahili had to go.

    Now I bet you’re thinking I’m lying. But fly me to Tokyo, bro, and see if I can’t order up a couple of Vodka Gibsons sans mustard.

    I’m like a friggin’ SEAL. Anytime. Anyplace. Anywhere. As long as there’s Planter’s cocktail nut mix.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  541. i’m now on a quest for a vodka gibson

    it took me over a year to score a “tom n jerry” so i don’t expect immediate results

    i’ll probably start by googling it

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  542. 538. man you live right Mr. 57

    you sure do

    are you sailing to Hong King as we speak for the battle royale?

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/24/2013 @ 5:16 pm

    You know what they say. Living well is the best revenge.

    But the Kumite in Hong Kong isn’t til Summer. C’mon, everyone knows that.

    The good thing is it gives a chance to recover after the sparring session with Mike Tyson (Oh how the mighty have been brought low). Fortunately my manager had the good sense to require Mike to remove his dentures, but, MAN! Does that guy have some wicked gums that can do a number on an ear.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  543. Vodka Gibson, hold the mustard, in KiSwahili in a Mombasa bar.

    I wish I knew how to make an emoticon with a face all befuddled and discombobulated

    I never even knew you could put vodka and mustard in the same sentence, let alone apparently in the same glass

    What do they teach those navy students in schools nowadays.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  544. But the Kumite in Hong Kong

    daughter’s sensei did it in Okinawa

    Did you see Bruce Lee in the shadows there?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  545. i’d much rather fight on the carbon levy hill than the gay marriage hill I think

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/24/2013 @ 4:22 pm

    Of course you would because you’d be getting what you want with homosexual marriage and with the carbon tax. It’s all about what you want instead of what’s good for society at large.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  546. 545. What do they teach those navy students in schools nowadays.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/24/2013 @ 5:33 pm

    Well, they try to teach us stuff like “don’t overstress the aircraft so as the rivets pop and the RIO pukes” or “quit drag racing the damned destroyers” but it doesn’t take.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  547. “tulip bulbs are similar to gay marriage in some ways mr. daley but in other ways they are very dissimilar indeed”

    Mr. Feets – They are very much zactly like gay marriage in many of ways you describe them. People bought them in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. They were popular, perhaps more so than those little cornichons, and intelligent, normal people purchased them. They were very much the paradigm shift you describe SSM, although not forced on people by a greasy azzed fascist government. I don’t know nothing bout tulips though cause all flowers look like them nastyturshams to me.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  548. I meant to ask you about the Kumite, steve.

    narciso (3fec35)

  549. I mean, when SEAL Team Two puts in a requisition for an ammo budget larger then the entire USMC, Dune Buggies, Boogie Boards, and hot tubs euphemistically renamed as “survival suit testing devices” what the hey do you think is going on?

    Par-tay!

    Steve57 (be3310)

  550. i hate carbon taxes

    man I hate them so much

    if come summer I entered the Kumite and I had to face off against a carbon tax man I’d tear its stupid carbon tax face off and stomp on it

    but gay marriage I’m cool with

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  551. Mr. daley tulips were a fad

    gay marriage is the real deal

    it’s not like tulips were ever this reviled thing everyone hated and in the span of a few decades became something people felt deserving of inclusion in a sacred institution

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  552. 552. if come summer I entered the Kumite and I had to face off against a carbon tax man I’d tear its stupid carbon tax face off and stomp on it

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/24/2013 @ 5:45 pm

    I’ll make sure to give him your love. Should the opportunity arise.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  553. feets,

    gay marriage has never been the real deal in thousands, millions, or billions of years, take your pick

    and it never will be

    whether the US makes it legal or not

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  554. you can be a deeply cynical person sometimes Mr. Dr

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  555. it is not cynicism, mr feets, just the truth

    same sex civil partnerships may become the law of the land, but it is not marriage

    if major league baseball started using softballs it wouldn’t be baseball, it would be overhand fast-pitch softball

    with or without mustard on the soft pretzels

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  556. MD, it is just a pom-pom thing. It’s “Entertainment Magazine,” writ large.

    It’s not about freedom, or privacy, or civil rights.

    See how ardent SSM types get all bigoted about plural marriages? It always gets all nasty and personal and bigoted…the way that SSM favoring people say is a bad thing in our society. You will read people saying that other marriage types than SSM will result in administrative troubles, or abuse, or whatever…based on data pulled directly from their own prejudices.

    What the proponents mean, of course (and we have seen it here), is that they want what they want…without thinking about any of the consequences or long term effects. It’s been pushed very heavily by our culture, so that anyone opposing it is, amusingly, a bigot (amusing because of their clearly bigoted responses to plural marriage).

    I mean, I want to ask how they would feel about plural gay marriages. Or plural gay Muslim marriages. Just to see their heads explode.

    But if it is all about what the culture pushes in our society, we should just elect the Kardashians to be our royalty.

    I guess we kind of did.

    It all comes down to people voting and believing things because of how it makes them feel about themselves. Better. Hipper. More “culturally online.” Not “old fashioned” or “out of it.” That’s the goal. If you don’t agree with Teh Narrative, why, you are a bigoted and terrible person.

    So much for that glorious rainbow of acceptance.

    It’s the same tune. Just different words.

    The difference is that people don’t consider the effects of their “feel good” decisions, which is kind of a grownup approach to things. Mainly because they are letting “The View” define what it means to feel good about oneself.

    How else to explain a majority of people disagreeing with the President’s economic policies, yet re-electing him? The answer is simple: they want to be one of the cool kids (at last!), and carry pom-poms. And be able to go to parties. And click “Like” on FB.

    And leave other people to clean up the mess.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  557. plural marriages are for weirdos what just want to make it stupid hard to make the seating arrangement chart at wedding receptions

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  558. I like how you prove my point so reliably, Mr. Feet. What I don’t understand is why you aren’t crying gin-scented tears, loving Big Brother?

    Mind you, I wouldn’t tweak your nonsense if you were consistent and honest in your “government out of personal affairs.” But you pick and choose, and it is clearly based on your own beliefs…which you call bigotry in others. Repeatedly.

    Follow the crowd, Mr. Feet. It makes you so…radical and cool.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  559. And so very, very individual.

    It’s like shopping at J. Crew. Or Hot Topic.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  560. He is one with Landru, Simon,

    narciso (3fec35)

  561. Well, they had a very harmonious society, narciso. It must be comforting to be of The Body.

    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Landru

    Except for The Red Hour.

    Or the Two Minute Hate. Which I think is also called “Hardball, with Chris Mathews.”

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  562. J. Crew is ok if you can find stuff on sale

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  563. pro-tip: the best sale stuff at j. crew is usually on the wall near the register

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  564. Also the Aliens of that other Stephanie Meyer project

    narciso (3fec35)

  565. I like how you prove my point so reliably, Mr. Feet. What I don’t understand is why you aren’t crying gin-scented tears, loving Big Brother?

    Mind you, I wouldn’t tweak your nonsense if you were consistent and honest in your “government out of personal affairs.” But you pick and choose, and it is clearly based on your own beliefs…which you call bigotry in others. Repeatedly.

    Follow the crowd, Mr. Feet. It makes you so…radical and cool.

    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/24/2013 @ 6:12 pm

    I’ve used that example often. And we’ve always been at war with eastasia.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  566. Stephanie Meyer has “projects” how freaking cute is that

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  567. *Stephenie* I mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  568. They are called the Souls, in the Host.

    narciso (3fec35)

  569. Stephenie’s work is always multi-layered like that

    meanings within meanings

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  570. Without even trying I have found 2 articles in the last few days about the desire among some to “legitimize” multiple partner couples. One I linked previously from the Huffpo gay section, another one is here:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/unitarian-universalists-would-prefer-their-polyamory-activists-keep-quiet/2013/03/22/f3d14eaa-9333-11e2-8ea1-956c94b6b5b9_story.html?hpid=z4
    (via: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/03/many-unitarians-would-prefer-that-their.html )

    Other than simply saying people want what they want, which is true of us all to some degree as Simon Jester makes the point above, here we at least try to make arguments of logic.
    I, and many others, don’t think the statement, “Well, nobody wants polygamy” is a very meaningful argument as to why we can change the definition of marriage to include SS, but not change it in any other way. Even if they didn’t now, it makes no difference a few years down the road, as who wanted SSM 20 years ago?

    I need to see why it can be justified that “marriage always means 2, it’s just that now we are including SS as the 2″ but one can’t say “marriage can be as many consenting adults that want to join into the agreement.” If you are going to change the definition (not talking about approving SS civil unions) it should have a logically consistent basis for how it can be changed and how it can’t be. Otherwise, all you have is a popularity contest over who wants what, but the pro-SSM folk are not advertising it as a popularity contest.

    When I see articles like the one above and Huffpo, I need to question how many SSM proponents really disagree/don’t think polygamy will be next, and how many are just playing the game as a tactic.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  571. See how ardent SSM types get all bigoted about plural marriages?

    That’s a light shined into the recesses of their own mind, indicating how two-faced they themselves are about the idea of human sexuality and the way government should treat it.

    I think of the occasions when happyfeet has used the word “gay” in a negative way. Yea, he’s a jokester and iconoclast, so I don’t want to read too much into that. But I’m also not sure if that’s similar to the way certain folks in the black community will use the “N” word either affectionately or derogatorily, but feel they can get away with that because “it’s all in the family.”

    Regardless, I’ve sometimes wondered whether that crudeness (or GLBTers who use “fag” in a slang-friendly manner) is a window into their own mind, a reflection of some deepdown bias that makes even such people suspect something isn’t quite right about the community they most closely identify with. Or a very, very subtle form of self-loathing, perhaps? But a personal, private disquiet about their clique that is overridden by the greater devotion they have to liberalism or leftism.

    Maybe that’s why I have great respect for people in the middle of groups where liberalism runs amok (ie, blacks, gays, Jews, Latinos, Europeans, San Franciscans or New Yorkers, Asians in Hawaii, etc) who discount the company line and are truly economically and culturally conservative, or at least totally centrist.

    It all comes down to people voting and believing things because of how it makes them feel about themselves. Better. Hipper. More “culturally online.” Not “old fashioned” or “out of it.”

    I think it’s also a way some people salve their guilty conscience, because they truly are subtly uncomfortable with [insert name of some person or group, or thing, or behavior, etc, here]. Worse of all, I think they buy into the notion that their liberalism means they’re therefore a nicer, more generous, more beautiful, more wonderful, more loving, more tolerant, more open human being. That would be okay if one and the other necessarily went together like bees and honey. Or if there wasn’t a reason for the phrase: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

    Mark (d57c6a)

  572. “Mr. daley tulips were a fad

    gay marriage is the real deal”

    Mr. Feets – But look at how you describe gay marriage. You describe it like a fad, something suddenly becoming popular, something cool kids support, something intelligent people support, a paradigm shift, etc., etc. People thought tulips were the real deal too.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  573. So were lupins for Dinty Moore, until it got too silly,

    narciso (3fec35)

  574. gay marriage may very well be a fad with respect to the eagerness of gay people to get married

    who can say

    but the acceptance of the idea is sure to be enduring

    not unlike the literary works of Stephenie Meyers

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  575. narciso – Keebler Elves, now they were the real deal.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  576. i’m more of a nutter butter kinda pika not really into the elf stuff really

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  577. No judge, whether federal, state, or municipal, can alter or amend any constitution, whether state or federal.

    Not true. If anything in a state constitution is contradicted by the US constitution or by a federal law, or by a treaty, then it is automatically invalid, and all judges, whether state or federal, are required to strike it down.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  578. 576. not unlike the literary works of Stephenie Meyers

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/24/2013 @ 8:00 pm

    You forgot Harry Potter.

    We as a civilization are getting prep’d to be remembered for Harry Potter, gay marriage, and probably World of Warcraft.

    Just saying if it was up to me to choose what I’d like to be remembered for if I were going to go down without a fight, after “going down with a fight” was scratched off the list, it’d probably be the Chevy Corvair V8 conversion, the Ronco pocket fisherman, and the George Foreman grill.

    And maybe that epic liberty in Phuket which I can’t talk about, and even if I could I don’t know if says anything about us as a nation besides the part about me not going back on the deal to make restitution.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  579. Harry Potter doesn’t die at the end he actually marries a girl – the ugly ginger kid’s sister, and they make little wizard babies

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  580. *** spoiler alert ***

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  581. I do have to admit my enthusiasm for the Ronco Pocket Fisherman has faded since I got some sort of back packer spin casting outfit from Cabela’s. The five piece rod, reel, and tackle box takes about the same amount of space.

    Perhaps I should shift my allegiance to the sham wow.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  582. Plus it comes in a zippered vinyl pouch.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  583. NJ Bob, again, you are preaching to the choir. I see no one here who is remotely disagreeing with the traditional importance of the family unit. It is stipulated. OK? What people (like me) are asking you to consider and comment on, though, is the practicality of HOW you expect to turn back the clock and return to the days of children being raised in “Leave it to Beaver”, “Donna Reed”, “Father Knows Best” or even “Huxtable” homes and attending non communist non unionized public schools after 30 years of rot.

    If you’re hoping it will happen through legislation and right leaning officials elected to high office then you have to have a way to get such people elected. Recently we have not been terribly successful in that endeavor. If your plan is something else, what is it? Will stopping the gay marriage juggernaut miraculously bring back the traditional family unit for the millions of Americans who do not have it? I don’t think so. Without a plan it’s just talk and pining for the old days. That’s the point I am trying to make. What is your response?

    Comment by elissa (fcea98) — 3/24/2013 @ 4:06 pm

    You do it by taking over those institutions the exact same way they did in the first place. I’m too young to pine over the old days. It’s my generation that isn’t going to have social security. It’s my generation that’s going to have a broke nation demanding we live in an oppressed state to pay for the irresponsible activities of our predecessors. You’re telling me everything has gone to hell so we should just give up.

    What makes you any different than the barbarians at the gate?

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  584. What generation do you belong to, NJRob? Cuz I’m inclined to invite you to get in line.

    I may in fact belong to a previous generation that didn’t vote for any of this crap, neither.

    Which sorta proves that taxation without representation is the very definition of tyranny.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576116680460638092.html

    Indeed, the politicians deserve our scorn as much as the team owners do. The old Giants Stadium cost $78 million, yet the outstanding debt more than 30 years later is $110 million. How did this happen? Simple: The politicians spent the money that was originally intended to pay off the debt on other things. It’s a common problem. Revenues get diverted to other programs and the stadium debt gets refinanced.

    “If I buy a house with a 30-year-mortgage and 20 years later I refinance it so that I can buy a yacht, is that house debt or yacht debt?” asks Mr. deMause. “Cities are using these revenue streams to pay for all sorts of stuff, and playing bookkeeping games.”

    Everyone’s grandkids are now on the hook to pay for vanity items.

    You’re worried about social security, NJRob? I’m out SS and a retirement check. What the hey did I spend 20 years in the Nav for?

    Maybe you think military retirement pay is just another form of welfare. Maybe you don’t. I don’te know. But I bolded the part that’s important. The pols hide behind the military, the cops, the firefighters, whatever, to demand more money from the taxpayer. Then spend it on other things. Because if they spent it on what they said, they’d run out of excuses to demand more cash from the taxpayers.

    Suffice to say I’m not a happy camper. Although camper does probably describe my future lifestyle.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  585. You’re worried about social security, NJRob? I’m out SS and a retirement check. What the hey did I spend 20 years in the Nav for?

    Maybe you think military retirement pay is just another form of welfare. Maybe you don’t. I don’te know. But I bolded the part that’s important. The pols hide behind the military, the cops, the firefighters, whatever, to demand more money from the taxpayer. Then spend it on other things. Because if they spent it on what they said, they’d run out of excuses to demand more cash from the taxpayers.

    Suffice to say I’m not a happy camper. Although camper does probably describe my future lifestyle.

    Comment by Steve57 (be3310) — 3/25/2013 @ 9:16 am

    Your wrong Steve. The military is one of the few areas that expressly belong to the Federal Government. I have no issue making sure those debts are paid for properly. The pension you earned is warranted.

    And I’m stating a fact by acknowledging I’m paying an addition tax in Social Security that I’ll never get to see. So anytime I discuss tax rates with people, I automatically add my social security and medicare taxes into the base tax rate when I discuss how much I’m paying. When they look at me shocked, I explain my reasoning.

    But I only brought that up to show how far we’ve fallen as a society where we only pay attention to our immediate wants and desires and how much damage that’s causing future generations. This idea of homosexual marriage is no different. There is no reason for the government to attach itself to another type of union and create the legal impetus to recognize and enforce such union. It’s going to create a nightmare logistically because of the lack of procreation within as well as create confusion if one “spouse” had a child from a previous real marriage.

    But the end goal is the destruction of the family. And that attack continues apace. It’s enough to make me not want to bring children into this world .

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  586. you’re

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  587. NJRob, please note. I went to considerable lengths to point out I didn’t presume to guess at what your individual thoughts were on the subject.

    But no greater lengths than you deserve. You probably don’t know how many times the pols have put me up to stupidity and I thought, “if the taxpayers only knew about this crap…”

    Steve57 (be3310)

  588. 580) reminded of Star Trek IV, where Kirk’s knowledge of the late 20th Century is informed by the works of Harold Robbins and Jacqueline Susann,
    to which Spock responds ‘ah, the Classics’

    narciso (3fec35)

  589. How did this happen? Simple: The politicians spent the money that was originally intended to pay off the debt on other things.

    This can’t be said enough. Especially in light of sequestration.

    The Obama administration can’t admit it wants to spend $$$$ on film projects involving black alien super heroines. So it has to cut the budget on border security.

    If the gub’mint has to choose between grants to subsidize crap at the film school at UCLA and spraying the bugs that spread the West Nile Virus, you can be sure it’s the bug sprayers who’ll be fired first. Also known as the “firemen first” or “Washington monument” syndrome.

    It’s how Detroit gets to be Detroit.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  590. I suppose I should suitably PC apologize for my previous comment. Apparently the intent of the Obama administration was that America should stop being hateful toward lesbians of color because the lesbian of color you’re next hateful toward could have come from the far side of the galaxy to save your worthless butt.

    And really, who can argue against that except a science denying global warming freak.

    So pony up with the film school grants.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  591. global warming lol

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  592. Mr. Feets, I hate to disappoint. The umbrella rack by the door used to contain a nice selection of Civilian Marksmanship Program Garands.

    Just in case it was raining Ostrogoths or something.

    Then the authorities cracked down.

    Now, all I can offer is a gift basket full of tactical knives.

    And mints.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  593. Within legal limits I’m still all about customer service and maintaining quality.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  594. Comment by NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/24/2013 @ 3:30 pm

    That’s why out of wedlock children deal with greatly higher rates of dysfunction. It’s why single mothers come to depend on the government to help raise their children. A child without a father and a mother suffers from that lack of stability that having a father and mother bring. Children need a father and a mother.

    What may really count is knowing your family history.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  595. 597. What may really count is knowing your family history.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/25/2013 @ 2:42 pm

    What do you think one of the major points of marriage was in the first place?

    Steve57 (be3310)

  596. It’s supposed to be great that the kids who result from gay marriage are no more screwed up than kids who don’t.

    Wonderful.

    But if it can be imagined that maybe, just maybe, knowing your family history might be helpful then what does anyone thing listing three or for five or a dozen parents on a birth certificate as the gay marriage enthusiasts are advocating in Kali will contribute to that cause?

    Steve57 (be3310)

  597. It’s an established fact that the instability inroduced by having five or six different brothers and sisters by two or three or four fathers even if all the various half dozen or more grandparents get involved ain’t a good thing.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  598. NJRob, please note. I went to considerable lengths to point out I didn’t presume to guess at what your individual thoughts were on the subject.

    But no greater lengths than you deserve. You probably don’t know how many times the pols have put me up to stupidity and I thought, “if the taxpayers only knew about this crap…”

    Comment by Steve57 (be3310) — 3/25/2013 @ 1:51 pm

    You are correct. I should’ve never written that first sentence and I did so from a defensive standpoint.

    I don’t get the people who think this doesn’t matter and are indifferent to the fact that a nuclear family matters when it comes to raising children.

    From a general standpoint, I don’t understand people who only respond to the issues they care about and are indifferent to others. How can they not understand that mentality means that other people will be indifferent to what they’re passionate about allowing government to create greater dysfunction.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  599. I totally agree that no child should be raised without a two-parent family. Every person, male and female, must undergo a vasectomy or tubal ligation as applicable upon onset of puberty. If later they wish to have a child, they must produce a spouse of the opposite sex. Both must have the requisite physical, mental, emotional, and financial capacity to conceive, carry to term, give birth to, and raise a child. They will then be issued a child license which they will take to a clinic which will artificially extract sperm and one ovum and implant it in the mother. There will be one permit per child, each subject to renewal every six months upon proof of proper parental capacity, until the child reaches the age of conscription. If renewal is denied at any time, the child will be removed from the parents and placed in a suitable facility. Reasons for denial will include divorce and widowhood without immediate remarriage.

    Directorate for Family Values (c5b7ef)

  600. Giggiggiggidy
    Gay Monday can’t trust that day
    Can’t turn back on it

    Colonel Haiku (52a84d)

  601. I totally agree that no child should be raised without a two-parent family. Every person, male and female, must undergo a vasectomy or tubal ligation as applicable upon onset of puberty. If later they wish to have a child, they must produce a spouse of the opposite sex. [blah blah blah blah blabber rabba babba dabba duh dumbty dumpty dum dum duhhhh]….

    Comment by Directorate for Family Values (c5b7ef) — 3/25/2013 @ 4:06 pm

    It’s amazing how devoted some people are to deliberately missing the point so they can support a position that even they know doesn’t make sense.

    L.N. Smithee (b6535d)

  602. i agree about the customer service piece

    customer service is a core function, not an afterthought

    I wish more people understood this

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  603. Speaking of money–did any of you catch the recent radio cast of NPR’s excellent This American Life hour about SSDI and the disability scam? It’s well worth listening to –but trust me—you do need to have ready access to liquor and have all sharp objects locked away while you do it. Don’t be expecting that it’s typical NPR pap. The report is really quite well done in a true journalistic manner and it’s shocking. 14 million people and billions of dollars worth of shocking.

    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/490/trends-with-benefits?act=0

    elissa (1abee6)

  604. It’s amazing how devoted some people are to deliberately missing the point so they can support a position that even they know doesn’t make sense.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (b6535d) — 3/25/2013 @ 4:29 pm

    It is trolling and doing so on a non-sockpuppet thread. Wonder how that will go over with Patterico.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  605. gay marriage should have its own this american life show then people will say hey I used to not support the gay marriage but after hearing this radio show I think it really is the way to go

    it really turned me around

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  606. Now, now, nk told us it was him.

    SPQR (768505)

  607. she probably woulda been ok with the gay marriagings cause of she had a gay kid like rob portman

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  608. It’s amazing how devoted some people are to deliberately missing the point so they can support a position that even they know doesn’t make sense.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (b6535d) — 3/25/2013 @ 4:29 pm

    Love doesn’t make sense. And happiness is kind of irrational too, when you think about it. Silly emotions, people wasting so much time and effort chasing them. But if that’s all homosexuals will get from their relationships, why not? No skin off my nose. I have loved a woman, I have had a daughter, and I did not ask anybody’s permission or approval, and for sure I was not making any societal, religious, or moral statement.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  609. The pace of evolution of Democrat Senators on SSM is picking up for some strange reason. Claire McCaskill and Mark Warner both evolved today. I question the timing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  610. Love doesn’t make sense. And happiness is kind of irrational too, when you think about it. Silly emotions, people wasting so much time and effort chasing them. But if that’s all homosexuals will get from their relationships, why not? No skin off my nose. I have loved a woman, I have had a daughter, and I did not ask anybody’s permission or approval, and for sure I was not making any societal, religious, or moral statement.

    Comment by nk (c5b7ef) — 3/25/2013 @ 8:06 pm

    Yet you haven’t explained why the government would desire your marriage or not. You married and procreated by choice and would have done so with or without government sanction. By that token does the government need to be involved in marriage at all?

    You know the answer.

    But the reason the government decides to recognize marriage is for only one purpose: to encourage an environment that is suitable to raise children by their parents.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  611. mariah carey sang a song about love once

    she warbled that she had a vision of love and it was all that you’ve given to me

    and then she married tommy mottola

    man that hooch is crazy

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  612. Love doesn’t make sense. And happiness is kind of irrational too, when you think about it.

    That goes double or triple for the feelings of “do-gooderness for do-gooderness’s sake,” which really is at the core of various people’s feelings about why same-sex marriage is such a necessary or beautiful concept. Or, for that matter, what is at the core of any hip, trendy issue — which is no less fraught with validating the “law of unintended consequences” — that’s increasingly deemed a necessary or beautiful concept (eg, the Boy Scouts of America should dump their anti-gay Troop leader rules?! But, of course! It’s heartless to feel otherwise!).

    SSM will merely further desensitize and cheapen the culture, in the same way that grade inflation has cheapened the value of an “A” or “B” grade, in the same way that the “meaning of is is” has cheapened the American presidency. I say that as someone who personally has become increasingly cavalier by how corrupt or decadent our society has become or is becoming. IOW, if I am responding in that manner, imagine how much more extreme it is in the public at large, definitely among those who are naturally into feel-good-ism and blatant, lazy non-conformity.

    I know plenty of guys will get a cheap thrill about envisioning the following taking place in, say, their living room. But prurient curiosity aside, this runs counter to those who claim that homosexuality is analogous to, for example, skin color or, for that matter, the non-chameleon differences between male and female genitalia.

    shine.yahoo.com, October 2011: A new study reveals that women’s sexual preferences tend to be a gray area (yep, identity confusion wasn’t just for those college dorm days). In fact, researchers at Boise State University found that in a group of heterosexual women, 60 percent were physically interested in other women, 45 percent made out with a woman in the past, and 50 percent had fantasies about the same sex.

    When heterosexual women hook up with other women, their relationships is based on an emotional connection. Lisa Diamond from the University of Utah believes that it only takes the right person for convince a woman to enter into a relationship with someone of the same sex.

    In addition, sexuality gets more, not less, fluid with time – yet more proof that experimentation isn’t just for college. In a study conducted by Diamond, the older a woman was, the more likely she was to describe her sexual preference as “unlabeled”. “We have this idea that sexuality gets clearer and more defined as time goes on,” says Diamond. “We consider that a sign of maturity to figure out who you are. I’ve seen it’s really the opposite.”

    Neuroscientist Ogi Ogas, Ph.D., analyzed billions of web information including web searches, erotic websites and e-books, and found that women are just as likely to search for “sexy pictures of Ryan Gosling” as “sexy pictures of Jessica Alba.”

    If it’s good enough for ancient Greece, it’s good enough for us.

    Mark (5f0661)

  613. i got fixated on cupcakes once and man it proved to be an unhealthy thing for me, cause of how many calories they put in the cupcakes

    but it helped me quit smoking

    are you trying to kick some kind of habit Mr. Mark?

    I would understand if you were

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  614. “That goes double or triple for the feelings of “do-gooderness for do-gooderness’s sake,” which really is at the core of various people’s feelings about why same-sex marriage is such a necessary or beautiful concept. Or, for that matter, what is at the core of any hip, trendy issue — which is no less fraught with validating the “law of unintended consequences” — that’s increasingly deemed a necessary or beautiful concept (eg, the Boy Scouts of America should dump their anti-gay Troop leader rules?! But, of course! It’s heartless to feel otherwise!).”

    Mark – According to the neo-materialist thinking of the secular clerisy we are all just mashed up bags of neurons and there is no real free will so the concept of do-gooderism and trendiness is meaningless. Our lives have been predetermined as a series of chemical reactions. To think otherwise would mean bringing spooky things, potentially even religion and faith into the conversation, and nobody wants to go there.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  615. Francis Crick:

    “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. Who you are is nothing but a pack of neurons.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  616. man debbie downer daleyrocks in da hizzy

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  617. Mr. Feets – It’s not me, those are your peeps.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  618. Mr. Feets – If you don’t believe them you are a science denier.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  619. 611. It’s amazing how devoted some people are to deliberately missing the point so they can support a position that even they know doesn’t make sense.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (b6535d) — 3/25/2013 @ 4:29 pm

    Love doesn’t make sense. And happiness is kind of irrational too, when you think about it. Silly emotions, people wasting so much time and effort chasing them. But if that’s all homosexuals will get from their relationships, why not? No skin off my nose. I have loved a woman, I have had a daughter, and I did not ask anybody’s permission or approval, and for sure I was not making any societal, religious, or moral statement.

    Comment by nk (c5b7ef) — 3/25/2013 @ 8:06 pm

    What’s love got to do with it?

    Steve57 (be3310)

  620. those aren’t my peeps I’m a staunch conservative this jacket represents my individuality and my belief in personal freedom

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  621. I gave away the jacket that represented my individuality to a stripper.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  622. tina is cool beans but what I love most about her is she did the whole huge “i’m retiring” tour and then … she retired

    she just did it

    done and done

    like johnny carson in fishnets

    everyone should raise a glass to tina if only just for that

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  623. Mind if I hoist a glass to Murph instead? Or ten?

    And maybe one to the exotic dancer who lifted my jacket when I went to the rest room?

    Steve57 (be3310)

  624. are you trying to kick some kind of habit Mr. Mark?

    Yes, Mr. happyfeet, I’m trying to kick the idiocy of liberalism, of do-gooderism for do-gooderism’s sake. Just about all of us have glints of that among our array of biases, and it tends to nullify our common sense. Do-gooderism for do-gooderism’s sake can be seen as a form of cancer of the brain.

    For example, I actually was less disturbed by — or closer to being agnostic about — the idea of same-sex marriage several years ago. I wasn’t supportive of it the way that Patterico is, but I wasn’t as annoyed by it too. Part of that was due to my feeling a bit sorry for the GLBT, because I used to buy into the notion of “hell, if gays could choose to be a certain way, why would they choose to be gay?!” Then it suddenly dawned on me: Is the concept of “it’s not a matter of choice—bad or good!” related to why some people feel a great need to wear metal studs in their tongues, ears and noses, to get tatoos all over their body, to watch really crappy TV shows or movies, eat crappy food, listen to crappy rap music all day long, etc?

    To think otherwise would mean bringing spooky things, potentially even religion and faith into the conversation, and nobody wants to go there.

    Except, daleyrocks, if we’re dealing with the religion of liberalism, which to folks like the ones in the White House is the most holy and devout of them all. A religion that to many on the left is truly beautiful, truly wonderful and truly heroic. The Church of Compassion for Compassion’s Sake may not make sense, it may not even, in fact, be actually compassionate or generous, but — in the eyes of most liberals — it’s still beautiful and sacred.

    Mark (5f0661)

  625. Mr. 57 I’m a huge fan of the military but

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  626. but in these days of ascending fascism I’m very wary of

    how to say

    overdoing it

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  627. tongues studs are what you get when you’re little and you want to make like you’re super into orally pleasuring your hookup womens

    it’s a thing

    but it’s not a gay thing to my knowledge

    in Austin it was a frat boy thing

    a lot of times guys what get the tongue studs also work at chain restaurants and end up selling real estate for a living

    or assistant managing a Hooters in Louisiana

    same same

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  628. “those aren’t my peeps I’m a staunch conservative this jacket represents my individuality and my belief in personal freedom”

    Mr. Feets – Look closer. They are. They are the staunch non-lifeydoodle, SSM supporters what you love first and foremostest so this insouciant nonsense about staunchy conservatism can stop right here and now although it is a big tent.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  629. “tongues studs are what you get when you’re little and you want to make like you’re super into orally pleasuring your hookup womens guy”

    Mr. Feets – FTFY. Some places used to offer twofers – tramp stamp and free tongue stud.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  630. lifeydoodles are mostly an 80s thing like george michael and jerry falwell

    it’s just that people are living longer these days

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  631. 628. Mr. 57 I’m a huge fan of the military but

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/25/2013 @ 11:22 pm

    629. but in these days of ascending fascism I’m very wary of

    how to say

    overdoing it

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/25/2013 @ 11:23 pm

    The only combat I’ve ever seen with the SEALs has been getting kicked out of a few Virginia Beach Bars and the Kadena Air Force Base Officers Club with them. If my name was John Kerry I’d have gotten a purple heart after the Kadena deal since one of the SEALs gave me a black eye after we got the boot when we went back to the BOQ and tried to cook up some rice. I’m passing one set of plates back then I turn and get whacked in the face with another plate. I just didn’t see it coming.

    I think it’s a testimony to the excellent practical sense we expect of our BUD/S candidates as well as the training we give them that not once, when it mattered, has a SEAL said, “You know what we need on this mission? Steve57!”

    But having my “three days with the SEALs” all expense paid experience including the ride in the six-by when a SEAL detachment did its damnedest to gross me out and no you don’t want to know I’ve got to say. About the last people you’ve got to worry about creeping fascism up on you are the SEALs.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  632. all the same it’s caution what’s the side it’s best to err on I think

    i might could explain more better tomorrow

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  633. Government/Aid Company Help

    nike free 5 (876dc4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.4356 secs.